Battle Scope

[Pvt. Ryan]

Steve, CM is still going to be fun, isn't it?

[a-lamer]

Don´t worry steve, I for one have never been too nit picky with the scale. In fact I tend to like smaller battles, since there every tank lost really hurts.

Now if you could only post some screenies

[Battlefront.com]

Fun? No. Our primary design goal was to make it have less units. Hmmmm... perhaps we should rethink our priorities

Steve

[kipanderson]

Hi,

The fact that CMX2 is optimised for a similar scope and scale to CMX1 was one of my major wishes; scope and scale are a part of the “magic” of CMX1. So back in January when Steve made clear this was the case my mind was put at rest .

The fact that CMX2 simulates matters in more detail than CMX1 and therefore players are likely to enjoy the smaller battles more is great. The way I normally express my wishes is for CM to be “optimised for platoon v company scale, but then to use it to fight bigger battles” .

With the first release of CMX2 it is worth remembering that there will not be live team lay, CoOp play I think Steve calls it. Therefore with the greater detail shown in CMX2 even I, someone who loves the bigger battles as well as the small, will feel no need for the near operational block busters.

However…. when CoOp play is introduces, in the second or third game, it would be a shame not to allow us to play as big games as the hardware could optimistically handle. I look forward to live games in which four to six players each have farces close to those they may have in a one on one game.

CoOp play will be used by some, me included, to model in far greater detail smaller battles with the Borg elements well and truly smashed. ( Live CoOp play being the “only” real way to truly deal with the Borg, in my view.) However, CoOp play also has huge potential for semi-operational games.

But I fully understand that the generational leap in hardware requirements means it will be sometime before I will be able to play live, near operational scale games with CMX2. The hardware can only do what it can do.

All the best,

Kip.

[Folbec]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

...

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:

...

Steve

For a number of people the main "problem" with small engagements is the low number of tanks involved (point value limitations) because there is always a big luck factor in individual tank vs tank *duels*.

Tactical games with only 2 tanks per side give a BIG bonus to the german big cats, because they do not factor in the operatinnal fuel problems, lack of range, lack of mechanical reliability... that plagued the Panzerwaffe.

And tanks were normally not used in one or twos, spread over the whole front, but preferably in companies or more.

However, I think it is more of a problem with the point value distribution of QBs than with the game system itself.

[Bigduke6]

Be that as it may, I still like larger battles. I think I am far from alone.

I don't like a fight where everything comes down to a 1-2 tank to tank engagements. I don't like a wargame where everything is decided at first contact, or close to it. I don't like a battle where the initial set-up is often decisive in determining the result.

Modern land war is ambushing. (Or, as Ritchie-Hook so nobly put it, "biffing".) The closer you get to the individual weapon, the more "pure" that law becomes. I do not want just a perfect ambush replicator, although the game engine should be able to do that too.

I like a fight which comes down to reading terrain right, figuring out and making happen an intelligent plan, committing resources, dealing with the unexpected, and hopefully pushing my plan through to success. My ideal "fun" window goes well beyond a couple of firefights. I want a game to force me, first, to outthink my opponent militarily. This is different than knowing how to get minimum exposure to your tank when you order it to do a shoot-and-scoot.

I thus clearly part ways with Mr. Dorosh. In my opinion, CM does an excellent job of replicating the decisions facing a battalion and even sometmes a regiment commander. It comes down to what force goes where, and understanding limitations of time, distance, and of course my subunits' combat capacities. If at all possible, I don't think in terms of "this tank" or "that MG". When possible I think in terms of platoons, and if I can manage it even in companies - and of course the support weapons mix they bring to whereever I have them.

Certainly I have a wonderful time fiddling on the microtactical level, setting up a antitank section in a clever ambush, plopping mortar rounds on a single gun, stuff like that. But for me those are just little pieces of a far more important whole: I have this combined arms force under my command, and my task is to get it to do something as efficiently as possible, against an armed and intelligent opposing force. What's happing on the ittty-bitty tactical level is fun for me to watch, and often nail-biting, but ultimately in the game the main value of the small stufff, for me anyway, is the information it gives me for decision-making at the battalion or even regimental level.

It is very gratifying for me when a plan comes together in a bigger CM battle - as some people who shall remain nameless, but who chronically smell of saurkraut and Pilsner beer, have seen personally.

I think it would be a real shame if the next generation of CM limited itself to a company/team combat simulator, considering combined arms fighting for most of history has been at levels of command a good deal higher than that.

(Of course Space Lobsters can combine arms, ah, pincers and mandibles and so forth, at whatever level of command they choose. One of my top rules is never, ever argue with Space Lobsters. :eek: )

But I also think Steve's explaination is pretty easy to understand. You have the horsepower under the hood and the willingness to do the niggle-work, and the new engine will probably suppport task force-size battles. It won't be exactly what the engine's designed for, but it that's what floats yer boat then go for it.

At least, I hope that's what the message is.

[Kilroy Lurking]

Steve Hi!

You mentioned hardware - is the new game going to be CPU or graphic card intensive? I really need to improve my computer set up. I am assuming just a 1GH G3 upgrade to my B&W will not be enough.

The current cheap (affordable) macs run at 1.4 GH & 32MB (though the eMac has 64MB) but they are all totaly un-upgradeable. Will this be in the minimum specs range?

If not then I am probably looking at a PC say an AMD3200. (Also will the game be 64bit optimised? - DualCPU/Core optimised?: or will this come later?

David

[Folbec]

Originally posted by Kilroy Lurking:

If not then I am probably looking at a PC say an AMD3200. (Also will the game be 64bit optimised? - DualCPU/Core optimised?: or will this come later?

David

Dual core / CPU do not bring spectacular benefits UNLESS the problem can be parallelized AND the software is specifically written for it.

A fair number of things can probably be computed in parallel in CM, but writing a threaded algorithm is ALWAYS a BIG challenge (I'm writting one now, what a pain) and will almost always be less efficient on monoprocessors. I doubt they will spend much time on this.

[undead reindeer cavalry]

i'm definately with Duke here for most parts.

FDF considers company the smallest tactical unit. from that perspective company vs company battles offer rather limited tactical possibilities.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Bigduke6:

I thus clearly part ways with Mr. Dorosh. In my opinion, CM does an excellent job of replicating the decisions facing a battalion and even sometmes a regiment commander. It comes down to what force goes where, and understanding limitations of time, distance, and of course my subunits' combat capacities. If at all possible, I don't think in terms of "this tank" or "that MG". When possible I think in terms of platoons, and if I can manage it even in companies - and of course the support weapons mix they bring to whereever I have them.

The game doesn't make you do that - you make yourself do that. You could scatter all your support weapons across the map any way you want, there are no penalties for inherently unrealistic uses of anything; the only thing you can't do is move squads out of C&C of platoon leaders. You're not playing battalion sized games, you're playing one big company. You're not forced to keep companies in reserve, you can employ everything you've got. You're not forced to Leave Out of Battle anyone. You're not hamstrung by inter-company communications. You give commands instantly to everyone undre your control, and see exactly what they see. What, exactly is it that you find a realistic representation of a battalion commander's burden? I don't see it. You see too much and have way too much control. There isn't a single decision you make in CM that is as difficult as it would be for a real life battalion commander.

[Andreas]

Michael is right.

[Soddball]

I agree in part with Doroshling, but where he says you have no need to hold companies in reserve - on big campaign maps that just isn't the case. Holding back forces in reserve to ensure you have enough strength for the following battles is necessary.

[Sergei]

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

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Soddball:

I agree in part with Doroshling, but where he says you have no need to hold companies in reserve - on big campaign maps that just isn't the case. Holding back forces in reserve to ensure you have enough strength for the following battles is necessary.

I think his point is that the game does not force you to do that, you force yourself to do that.

Example - I am currently playing some contraption by that mad toothpick wielder otherwise cursed at as Sergei. I attack with a reinforced Soviet infantry battalion and half a tank brigade. I have just thrown the whole lot onto a single objective, completely overwhelming the German defense. Now my opponent (hi Jon) is trying to counter-attack and hit me in the flank. IRL that would be very bad for my weak forces there. But with borg spotting and instant command, the lack of a reserve does not matter. I just motor some KVs over to his attack and drop the whole lot of fascist invaders by judicious (who am I kidding, reckless) use of cannister.

Its not a campaign, but a long battle on a big map. IRL I would have had to keep some reserves somewhere. But in CMx1, nope, I can just throw the whole gang into the breach.

[Sergei]

Originally posted by Soddball:

I agree in part with Doroshling, but where he says you have no need to hold companies in reserve - on big campaign maps that just isn't the case. Holding back forces in reserve to ensure you have enough strength for the following battles is necessary.

Very much true. In an operation, you just never know when your enemy might go to counter-attack and concentrate his forces right where it hurts. Or if your forward troops get rattled by artillery and need to be replaced.

In fact, I have sometimes held even a whole Battalion in rear echelon when on attack (or four companies from two different battalions, to be precise). The point being that once the first echelon has made a break, the fresh troops, with their full ammo stocks, pour in to pursue and deal with enemy reserves.

In one of my own historical battles, the OOB for one side includes two battalions, each consisting of two companies plus support arms. The logic is that the other companies are in reserve and wouldn't have an effect on the fighting within the time limit. You don't get to be a Battalion commander, but a multi-battalion taskforce commander.

IMHO for a game to properly portray being a platoon/company/battalion commander and why certain tactics that we use are gamey, it would have to include out-of-battle considerations such as supply, med-evac, command & control, the bigger fight taking place around you, being in contact with superiors, etc.

Right now I'm playing two historical PBEM games in which both I'm in possession of a whole Regiment of infantry. Yep, whole Regiments. I'm loving it and hope that CMx2 will allow Corps level!

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Sergei:

IMHO for a game to properly portray being a platoon/company/battalion commander and why certain tactics that we use are gamey, it would have to include out-of-battle considerations such as supply, med-evac, command & control, the bigger fight taking place around you, being in contact with superiors, etc.

But a battalion commander didn't do this, either. The battalion quartermaster, Medical Officer, medical platoon, signals platoon and the sergeant majors did all this for him. They did it so the battalion commander didn't have to worry. He also had an Adjutant for administrative stuff and a Regimental Sergeant Major (at least in the CW; the Germans had no equivalent) to look after ammunition, prisoners, supply, discipline, etc.

The battalion commander moved his companies on the battlefield based on the limited information provided by his company commanders, who sent info back by wire, wireless and runner. He may have co-ordinated supporting fires, from his own mortars, and from the FOOs attached to his headquarters - he likely told the FOOs which companies to go out with if they weren't at BHQ. In the CW, he was rarely out front - though always exposed to shell fire. "Cec" Merritt at Dieppe was a notable exception.

I've written a bit about battalion commanders here: Battalion Commanders

None of it applies to CM, but it is a subject I find interesting.

Simply ordering a bunch of companies around without restriction does not make one a battalion commander.

At Assoro in 1943, the CO of the Hastings and Prince Edward Regiment was convinced all four of his rifle companies had been lost or wiped out, and he spend a sleepless night trying to get in contact with them. They managed to scale a cliff in the middle of the night and outflank a German hilltop position. He had had very little to do with it.

I believe my own Regiment at Walcheren Causeway was in the same boat; contact with the companies was hampered by radio equipment not working or being knocked out, and company commanders were becoming casualties. The battalion's CO had little control over the battle. Compare to CM where the player knows the disposition of every single one of his units.

Don't get me wrong, I like playing the big CM ops and battles, too, but it has nothing to do with the reality of commanding a battalion in action. A company commander can realistically be expected to know the general location of all his squads and teams in many situations. A battalion commander sometimes didn't even know what his companies were doing or where they were.

So justifying a bigger game scale by saying that CM currently simulates anything bigger than a company is demonstrably false to anyone who knows what it is a battalion commander does in action.

[ September 02, 2005, 08:35 AM: Message edited by: Michael Dorosh ]

[Sergei]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

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

IMHO for a game to properly portray being a platoon/company/battalion commander and why certain tactics that we use are gamey, it would have to include out-of-battle considerations such as supply, med-evac, command & control, the bigger fight taking place around you, being in contact with superiors, etc.

But a battalion commander didn't do this, either. The battalion quartermaster, Medical Officer, medical platoon, signals platoon and the sergeant majors did all this for him. They did it so the battalion commander didn't have to worry. He also had an Adjutant for administrative stuff and a Regimental Sergeant Major (at least in the CW; the Germans had no equivalent) to look after ammunition, prisoners, supply, discipline, etc.</font>

[Sergei]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

At Assoro in 1943, the CO of the Hastings and Prince Edward Regiment was convinced all four of his rifle companies had been lost or wiped out, and he spend a sleepless night trying to get in contact with them. They managed to scale a cliff in the middle of the night and outflank a German hilltop position. He had had very little to do with it.

You should know that there were also cases in which the Company commander was out of contact with his platoons. But if your Company HQ gets wiped out in CM, well - no problemo!!! Anyone claiming that Combat Mission can model Company level, must be out of his mind.

[Soddball]

Originally posted by Sergei:

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

I have just the campaign for you. Divisional scale.

[Michael Dorosh]

Battalion command can be simulated - even in the CM engine, though not currently as coded.

Multiplayer. And I don't mean TCP necessarily, you can do it simply as different players in a hotseat format - even the same player.

Each orders phase, a player gets to see only his own units, all limited to one Company of men. He has LOS to friendly units that are either in plain vision, or whom the company commander has been advised of the positions of. He gives orders, and gets the opportunity to pass a text message to the other company commanders (players). He chooses the method - wire, wireless, runner.

He ends his orders phase. The next player - another company commander of the same battalion - opens up his turn. Same thing. He sees his own units, perhaps friendly units that he has been made aware of. Enemy units that his men can see or that other companies have identified. The text message that player one sent? Maybe it doesn't arrive this turn; if it was wireless, and the radio works, it does. If it was a runner, it may take ten turns. He may be killed before it arrives. Player two gives his orders.

Play passes to player three.

Etc.

I think that would be a more realistic burden; one player could take over all the roles simultaneously; I think then he'd be close to being a true battalion commander (though of course a battalion commander wouldn't be ordering squads and platoon around). But it would be much closer than CM's current model.

So stick with the company level portryal in CMX2 - just divide them up into seperate company POVs and you COULD go up to a brigade with some kind of realism.

[Sergei]

Originally posted by Soddball:

</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!

I have just the campaign for you. Divisional scale. </font>

[Bigduke6]

Post deleted because of a deal with Elmar, and OPSEC.

[ September 02, 2005, 02:27 PM: Message edited by: Bigduke6 ]

[Elmar Bijlsma]

Bigduke6, better edit out any info about the ROW battle. Fog Of War, you know. Even the slightest clue or description is against the rules.

[Soddball]

Originally posted by Sergei:

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

</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!

I have just the campaign for you. Divisional scale. </font>

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Bigduke6:

[QB] Andreas,

You would say that, you already admitted you don't like big battles.

I'll spare you and Michael the essay on why I think the CM virtual company commander is just about as divorced from reality, as the CM battalion commander.

Why? It's exactly the heart of the issue. dish.

Instead, here's a war story:

I am in the latter stages of a 45-turn big ROW battle, and I held an infantry company motionless and under cover for a full 25 turns. Now the battle is tilting in my favor as a result, and indeed my opponent in a worse mess, as a result of my commitment of that force.

The thing is, I did it too late. I see now I should have put those guys into motion at 20 turns. Maybe even on turn 18 or so. True turn 0-15 would have been a big goof, the course of the battle makes that clear. But I see now the window was turns 18 - 22 or so, and I missed it.

Nobody made me keep a reserve. The tactical situation called for it. It just made sense to hold back that reinforced company until I got a better picture of the enemy defense.

And you managed to get a picture perfect view of that defence, with you, as battalion commander, seeing exactly what every one of your squads saw, with perfect intelligence and instantaneous communication to you of what they saw and where.

I wasn't worried about penalties, or command lines, or faithfully replicating task force decision-making. I just wanted to fight the CM battle efficiently. My decision was not artificial. I think that's good.

Wasn't realistic either. You had far too much control over what your units did, and saw far too much of what they saw.

I think the game did an outstanding job of replicating, and presenting to me, that very basic field commander decision.

I think you're wrong.

I had to track where my units were in an complex operation,

And did it with far more ease than a real battalion commander would have.

and I had to decide where and when the reinforced company I was holding out, needed to come in.

And came to that decision far too easily.

The game is penalizing me right now, in the best possible way, for committing an error with my reserve.

Even when its too easy, ya can still just plain suck at CM.

What is wrong with this picture?

Reread my posts in detail for your answer.

As far as I am concerned, nothing, the game did an outstanding job of presenting me the player with the classic decision facing the battalion commander: where and when to commit the reserve.

The decision was realistic, the information presented to you most certainly was not, nor your ability to move that company instantly, and communicate to them where the enemy was, down to the squad level.

I would add that in a smaller battle the incentive not to keep a reserve is much higher, as distances are less and so weapons effectiveness, since they can reach of a relatively larger portion of the virtual battlefield, are greater.

This is true.

So...maybe CM is actually better at the battalion level than the company level, seeing as keeping a reserve is a pretty basic military rule, and so worthy of replication in computer wargames. If you can get away without a reserve in little battles, and pretty much must have a reserve in big battles, why, doesn't that make CM the perfect battalion/task force battle replicator? Hmmm...

I think your grasp of what a battalion commander does in action is weak if non-existent and you continually underestimate how imperfect the global spotting is as well as its impact on how CM is played.

That reserve company of yours would have no way of knowing that a German MG was set up 10 yards away from the third tree on the left beside the big brown house. Or that it had panicked and had started running 35 seconds ago. Yet as a CM player, this information is right at your fingertips.

Until you "get" this, I think you're ill equipped to judge CM's ability to portray battalion level actions.