Battle Scope

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Bigduke6:

What is wrong with this picture? 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.

How often were battalion reserves committed in a 45 minute battle?

Originally posted by Bigduke6:

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.

I think that is where I should say that it appears you are making an awful lot of assumptions about something we know very little about.

Originally posted by Bigduke6:

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...

And here you are jumping to conclusions based on your assumptions. Which may or may not be right.

[Bigduke6]

Elmar,

Nah, the only intell there is that one of the sides in one of the ROW scenarios has a company and a place to hide it. That is not exactly giving away the crown jewels.

But tell you what, I'll do the edit if you send me a turn like you promised. Surely if you have enough energy to read my posts, you can find the time to do that setup!

[dalem]

Here in my local historical miniatures gaming group, a guy who used to be in the Canadian military runs occasional "Map Games" for us using the online Kriegspiel rules. I've talked about it before. I've played the role of a divisional commander a few times and I'm told that the games we run are similar in feel and scope to the paper exercises real militaries sometimes do.

And as the divisional commander, I have a map and a dream, and that's IT. I give my orders to the guys representing my regimental commanders, and I get support for them from corps and other parts of the division. But do I order COMPANIES around the map? Of course not. I don't even have anything to represent units that small on the map anyway.

So the idea of a battalion commander pushing bazooka and MG teams around the map seems equally silly to me.

-dale

[Andreas]

Same here when I commanded 43rd Wessex during CMMC1. I could not normally care less about companies.

[Soddball]

Originally posted by dalem:

Here in my local historical miniatures gaming group, a guy who used to be in the Canadian military runs occasional "Map Games" for us using the online Kriegspiel rules. I've talked about it before. I've played the role of a divisional commander a few times and I'm told that the games we run are similar in feel and scope to the paper exercises real militaries sometimes do.

And as the divisional commander, I have a map and a dream, and that's IT. I give my orders to the guys representing my regimental commanders, and I get support for them from corps and other parts of the division. But do I order COMPANIES around the map? Of course not. I don't even have anything to represent units that small on the map anyway.

So the idea of a battalion commander pushing bazooka and MG teams around the map seems equally silly to me.

-dale

You clearly aren't playing the 'Hitler' rules, which allow you to know in an instant the strength of the enemy and to place individual companies in the correct location.

[KG_Cloghaun]

At Kampfgruppe we have been routinely playing multiplayer games with as many as 4 vs 4 via PBEM. A team member plots his orders then passes the saved game file to the next person on his team until everyone has plotted, then the file is executed and sent to the other team. We have 2 different rule sets our membership have created, covering cummunication, logistics, etc,.. In a campaign we are currently playing (designed by KG_Thorshammer), the element of role playing is incredible. It takes on a life of it's own. This same campaign has been going on for over a year now, spanning several maps. We troop import to simulate reserves, leaving the battle for resupply, etc,..

We use Nafziger's series of German OOB books and Sharps Russian OOB volumes, plus other books covering a particular battle and it ends up being quite impressive. Not perfect, but damn close. I've managed to recreate the opening Russian attack at Kapitanovka which took place during the Korsun Pocket. That operation over the course of 6 battles involved approx 5 regiments of infantry and support.

These long campaigns/operations have rarely been smaller than regimental sized and we've experienced no problems forcing the game to run at this level.

Small battles are cool too. To each his own. I just think everyone would like the option of playing at least the same size engagements as we can now, regardless of what size preference you have.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by KG_Cloghaun:

At Kampfgruppe we have been routinely playing multiplayer games with as many as 4 vs 4 via PBEM. A team member plots his orders then passes the saved game file to the next person on his team until everyone has plotted, then the file is executed and sent to the other team. We have 2 different rule sets our membership have created, covering cummunication, logistics, etc,.. In a campaign we are currently playing (designed by KG_Thorshammer), the element of role playing is incredible. It takes on a life of it's own. This same campaign has been going on for over a year now, spanning several maps. We troop import to simulate reserves, leaving the battle for resupply, etc,..

We use Nafziger's series of German OOB books and Sharps Russian OOB volumes, plus other books covering a particular battle and it ends up being quite impressive. Not perfect, but damn close. I've managed to recreate the opening Russian attack at Kapitanovka which took place during the Korsun Pocket. That operation over the course of 6 battles involved approx 5 regiments of infantry and support.

These long campaigns/operations have rarely been smaller than regimental sized and we've experienced no problems forcing the game to run at this level.

Small battles are cool too. To each his own. I just think everyone would like the option of playing at least the same size engagements as we can now, regardless of what size preference you have.

Of course the game runs at this level. That's not the point. You can put 100 infantry companies on a 12 square km map. If you have a good enough rig, you can do more.

Notice that you have multiplayer to simulate the different commanders. That's part of the solution to effectively simulating higher levels of organization. It doesn't address the fact that enemy units are known to every single soldier in your regiment as soon as they are identified by the point man in the lead squad.

I don't doubt it is great fun; sounds a bit like the Tank Rumble Gordon had, though we passed our moves on by email rather than plotting them ourselves. But your campaign has nothing to do with higher levels of command or accurately simulating them, however. There have been many campaigns in the 5 years or so of CM; I've dipped my toe into at least half a dozen, most of which never got off the ground.

I'll say it again - putting "lots of guys" on a map and calling them a regiment doesn't mean you are simulating a regimental action. It just means you're playing with lots of guys.

[kipanderson]

Hi,

As a huge fan of the big battle scenario, yes, regiments and brigades are good I thought I would just chip in to reinforce what some others have said.

Firstly, I enjoy big battles because I find it hugely good fun to see every part of a vast battle in the detail my nearest squad or AFV commander can see it in. Hence my dislike of the idea of “command games”….. but everyone to their own .

Now this does not mean that I do not recognise the problems with big battles in CMX1. Happily the two main problems are easily dealt with; well potentially they are easily dealt with anyway.

The first is the “single controlling mind”, or Borg related problem. In all size games of CM the single controlling mind on each side is a real problem in that it makes coordination so simple compared to the real world. Steve has said there will be far more C & C challenges in CMX2 which will help, but the real answer lies in live team play, CoOp play. The only way round the problem of the single controlling mind is to have more than one mind controlling on each side . For maximum realism it is still the case that smaller games, but with say half a dozen players on each side, will most realistically model the true chaos of real world battles. If you envisage a battle with a reinforced company in defence and a battalion in attack, each side with 5-6 players then the potential for misunderstanding and chaos will be at it most realistic. (I am assuming that each player can only see/spot what the units he directly commands can see/spot.)

However, clearly CoOp play will also help greatly in removing one of the major problems with big games. If you envisage a reinforced battalion in defence against an attacking brigade, with 5-6 players on each side, the problem of the single controlling mind will be far less than in a current smallish CMX1 battle. A slightly different type of chaos to that in small CoOp games…. but chaos all the same .

The second problem with semi-operational battles is much referred to above by others; they must be set in a true operational environment where force preservation matters. There is a need for a mind-set that can only really be generated if the players know they will have to use their current forces again and again in some form of CMMC style game. Some players still never really get it, and sacrifice all for one small objective, but on the other hand, some players do very rapidly understand the need for force preservation.

The third problem, far down the list in importance from the two above but still real, is more attention to the Uber mature of obstacles such as mines and wire. Engineering in general needs attention to enable bigger battles to have a more realistic feel. There is a need to be able to model more realistic breaching operations, and such matters.

I am very optimistic that all three problems with big battles in CMX1 will be addressed in CMX2. Clearly CoOp play is right up there top of the list for the second or third game in the series. But I am optimistic there will, in time, be some help in dealing with problems two and three as well. Operations/CMMC style games are bound to make it onto a list at sometime, plus, it can only be a “matter of time” before Battlefront gives some attention to more detailed modelling of engineering/obstacles and such. Maybe in game three after CoOp play in game two. Who knows…

All good fun,

All the best,

Kip.

[kipanderson]

Hi,

Depending on how CoOp play is modelled, could well be help for those like Michael who appear to wish for something a little closer to a “command game”.

In a CoOp game one may be able to set the battalion commander to only directly control, say, the artillery assets. Thus he would only be able to see/spot what his own icon could see and what his artillery spotters could see. Communication with company commanders being by text message. Would give a very real feel to things.

Time will tell…

All the best,

Kip.

[dalem]

Originally posted by Soddball:

You clearly aren't playing the 'Hitler' rules, which allow you to know in an instant the strength of the enemy and to place individual companies in the correct location.

I tell ya - when I took the job of commander of the 9th SS Panzer responding to a massive breakthrough in the NW of CW armor forces and was tasked with

a) regaining contact with the divisions on the flanks of the break

stopping the (size and composition unknown) CW armored breakthrough

c) counterattack and regain the line and the bridges beyond,

I looked at that map, looked at all the empty space marked up with a few red arrows pointing SE between the last known positions of our sister divisions, looked at my list of available (and promised) assets, and just said to my regimental commaders, "F*** that noise. We do a) and the part of that lets us re-establish a decent line, and screw c)."

The guy running the game smiled and said "My job here is done."

Anyway, as the div commander, as the battle progressed, the hardest part was accepting that every blank space on the map could not be filled in with my units. I now have a dim comprehension of what a divisional "defensive line" might sortof have kinda been like.

-dale

[ September 02, 2005, 11:05 AM: Message edited by: dalem ]

[Cameroon]

dalem, that sounds like it would have been a hell of a lot of fun to participate in

[dalem]

Originally posted by Cameroon:

dalem, that sounds like it would have been a hell of a lot of fun to participate in

It is a total blast. Basic rules concept is here.

Obviously there are lots of directions to go. The friction is the most fun. "Why did you go off East? Your orders were to recon your battalion to the North!" "Hm. Yeah, well, I thought I could go East and swing back. I guess I didn't make it."

Stupid subordinate commanders.

-dale

[Vanir Ausf B]

I just don't see any good reasons to prohibit big games in CMx2 if that's what people want to play and they have the horsepower to do it.

1. "CM doesn't simulate battalion command well".

I don't think it does any better at simulating command of a company. It isn't supposed to. It's not a command-level game, and according to BFC never will be (and thank God for that!). But even if I'm wrong, it doesn't matter. It's a personal preference and therefore there is no right or wrong way of playing it.

2. "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."

By all means limit the official scenarios to a size appropriate to the recommended system specs. But don't limit people who have high-end machines from making DYO scenarios or QBs for their own enjoyment. Many games today are released with graphical options that if set to their highest settings will bring all but the most powerful rigs to their knees. But these settings are optional and just because most can't use them when the game is released isn't a good reason not to include them at all. If CMBO is any indication, the first release of CMx2 will continue to be played for years after its release when many people who could not run bigger games initially will have bought new hardware.

3. 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.

These all seem to boil down to time requirements. In a nutshell, CMx2 will require a (much?) greater time investment on the part of the player for a given size battle than in CMx1. I understand that, but some people, such as myself, think nothing of spending a couple of hours on a single turn in CMx1 and wouldn't mind doing the same in CMx2.

It's just an option. People don't have to play big games if they don't want to. But there are many people who do. The only good reasons I can think of not to even allow the option is if there is some technical reason it can't be done, or if it would be a very time consuming thing to put in. It doesn't appear the former will be true, and the latter does not appear to have been true for CMx1.

Just a few thoughts...

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Vanir Ausf B:

I just don't see any good reasons to prohibit big games in CMx2 if that's what people want to play and they have the horsepower to do it.

I actually agree with this - just don't bill it as a battalion/brigade/regiment/etc. level game, cause it's not.

1. "CM doesn't simulate battalion command well". I don't think it does any better at simulating command of a company. It isn't supposed to.

Yes, it does do a little bit better at simulating command of a company, mostly by accident rather than design, and no, you are correct, it isn't supposed to.

The only thing it does better is accidental; the player still has instant access, via global spotting, to the location of all his own units and all enemy units no matter how few friendlies have spotted them. However, at least a real-life company commander in action had a reasonably ok idea of where his three or four platoons were and what they were supposed to be doing, and what they were seeing. At this level, it's an acceptable fudge.

Otherwise, the CM player doesn't command them in the sense that he issues orders and the platoons then carry them out. It would be a dull game. So the player goes in and issues detailed orders. I think we all want to keep that level of control. No arguments there.

I think Steve has dropped enough hints as to greater complexity in CMX2, greater detail, more decision making and additional layers of realism, that I'm willing to wait and see what it brings - with no small level of anticipation - before demanding more, or hollering "not enough."

[Vanir Ausf B]

Well, I haven't "demanded" anything, just stated my opinion; one which I know a lot of CM players share (when I played on the old Rugged Defense ladder 1000 pts was the minimum size a game could be to count).

IIRC, when the point limit was raised from 1000 in a patch for CMBO (I think it was actually raised several times) it was entirely due to popular demand, not because BFC thought it a great idea. So they've underestimated peoples' appetite for this before.

Certainly CMx2 will be a whole new ball of wax, and it may well be that battalion+ size battles are unworkable, although that is not apparent from what we know so far. But I learned from CMBB that if you wait until the game is released before you comment on some feature it may be too late (I could give examples here but would rather not... )

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Vanir Ausf B:

I just don't see any good reasons to prohibit big games in CMx2 if that's what people want to play and they have the horsepower to do it.

I agree, and my guess is so does BFC. As I pointed out a number of posts ago, CM1 was not a battalion level game, but they did not prohibit playing battalion or above games. Do you think they will now? If so, why?

[Barrold]

More than that, CMx1 was capable of producing a scenario like 'Across the Volga' that still brings most rigs to a chugging standstill. While it obviously was not the design scope, it was a flexible enough system to allow users to push the envelope.

If the new system is capable, I wouldn't think artificial constraints would be inserted to prevent this sort of experimentation. My uninformed guess would be that they would rather extend the same sort of flexibility while noting it was beyond what was officially intended.

BDH

[Vanir Ausf B]

Originally posted by Andreas:

I agree, and my guess is so does BFC. As I pointed out a number of posts ago, CM1 was not a battalion level game, but they did not prohibit playing battalion or above games. Do you think they will now? If so, why?

Because Steve seems to have implied that on the bottom of page 1:

"The first release will focus on sub-battalion engagements"

Perhaps I misunderstood his meaning?

[mrpwase]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

I actually agree with this - just don't bill it as a battalion/brigade/regiment/etc. level game, cause it's not.

Does one have to bill the game as anything in particular? CM1 can cope with anything from company to regimental (divisional?) level (if not in gameplay, then at least in capability), and if CMx2 can do the same (eventually) why restrict it to company level?

I understand the principle behind Combat Mission is to make the game as realistic as possible, and this is admirable, but I do think sometimes the realism gets in the way of the game. To be honest, I don't mind if battalion/brigade/regiment battles don't factor in all the challenges facing a commander of said formations - in the end I just want to play a large battle. What matters to me is the realism at the very lowest level, in the combat and movement of units. All the rest I can quite happily abstract.

[dalem]

Originally posted by Vanir Ausf B:

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

I agree, and my guess is so does BFC. As I pointed out a number of posts ago, CM1 was not a battalion level game, but they did not prohibit playing battalion or above games. Do you think they will now? If so, why?

Because Steve seems to have implied that on the bottom of page 1:

"The first release will focus on sub-battalion engagements"

Perhaps I misunderstood his meaning? </font>

[Andreas]

I think we can all agree that CM1 also focused on sub-battalion engagements. So yes, I think you misunderstood him. Focus on to me does not mean restrict to.

I think this is turning into Kreminology fast Let's try to interpret Steve's words on the basis of our Angst. Do they hint at a struggle behind the walls of Charles jar? Is Matt gaining power slowly? Which faction will Kwazy eventually sign up with? Who is really running the show? Does Martin's background as a salesman make him more or less likely to ruthlessly seize power when we least expect it? Do Steve's comments mean that a new age is dawning in the shack where he dwells?

I am not concerned about it at this stage, but maybe I am just too relaxed.

All the best

Andreas

[Barrold]

I think having them say the focus in on sub-battalion engagements is to essentially say the scale would remain the same in CMx2 as CMx1. Some may use it differently from the intended focus and we shall have to see what level of flexibility is included, but these scenarios would be beyond what was originally envisioned.

Instead of taking the above statement as a limitation to company-level battles, what if it leaves open the possibility for larger battles in the future?

BDH

[Vanir Ausf B]

LOL! I agree he doesn't explicitly say either way. Maybe that hasn't been decided. It's still best to get your 2¢ in early.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by mrpwase:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

[qb]I actually agree with this - just don't bill it as a battalion/brigade/regiment/etc. level game, cause it's not.

Does one have to bill the game as anything in particular? </font>

[Bigduke6]

Jeez Mr. Dorosh. That's quite a double standard you have going there.

As you well know, CM allows the virtual company commander the precise same inputs as the virtual battalion commander. The same sound markers, unit markets, and absence thereof.

What's more, the CM virtual company commander almost always has an easier time of it, than the CM battalion commander. It's simple numbers. At the company level one has less map area to keep track of, less units to juggle, and less enemy to hunt for. The CM battalion commander has to do the same thing, but he has usually 3-5 times as much stuff to keep up with. So if you are arguing CM bn commanders make too well-informed decisions, then CM company commanders are making decisions, even more overly well-informed.

Yet you seem to have a pretty high opinion of CM as a company battle simulator. I don't see the logic in that. If I am misunderstanding you and your position is "CM sucks, there's too much info for the player period", then my apologies for not getting you right. But you don't seem to me to be a person who thinks CM sucks. You seem to me to be a person who thinks CM is an outstanding simulator at company level, but sucks at battalion level. I call that a double standard.

As to control over subordinates, as you well know, in a war neither a company nor a battalion commander is positioning sections, or squads for that matter. In a war of any intensity, commanders manage one level of command downward, and that's pretty much it. Any control beyond that is artificial, equally, at company and battalion level.

You say:

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

I say: Maybe I do suck. But then, maybe I know something about battalion-level CM fights you don't.

Yah, I know, you're a real experienced player, and I'm a noobie. How dare I contradict you?

Well here's an offer, how about you wipe the floor with me? You seem to think I'm full of hot air. Care to try and prove it? Andreas can pick the scenario. Anything big.

You say:

"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 say: Certainly that degree of control was unrealistic for a battalion commander. Are you saying it's realistic for a company commander?

You say: 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.

I say:

The reserve company was on the far side of a hill. My decision was to send it out from cover, and over the hill, to strike what I thought was one of the ends of the enemy line. That is all.

You are writing with an awful lot of confidence about a CM battle you not only have never seen, but know about only by hearsay. You don't know how much information I had in the battle, nor do you know what went before in the battle I was playing, nor do you have any clear idea of what indicators of enemy force the game engine actually gave me. You don't know how much control I had over my forces, nor do you know how well or poorly my opponent was able to interfere with what I was trying to do. You didn't know until I just told you whether the reserve commitment I was talking about was aimed at a perceived flank, line gap, or a strongpoint in an attempt to overwhelm it.

That's a pretty big information gap for you to overcome, for you to draw better conclusions than me about a battle, considering I fought it, and you didn't.

All I am talking about is making the decision "The company needs to go there, now," based on an imperfect understanding of where my opponents defenses were located, and in what strength. I'm not taking about "Hehehe, this squad here, that section there, this is a great place for the LMG section, oh boy I'm going to nail that trench with my grenade bundle, the enemy MG ran 35 seconds ago."

Of course the result of the decision - the execution -went much faster and more efficiently in CM than in RL. But that's just as true if one is commanding a company-level game. I'm not talking about speed and efficiency of execution. I'm talking about the thought process leading up to the decision.

As to my understanding on how a battalion commander makes decisions relative to your understanding of the same thing, since you seem to make to want to make an issue of it, as it happens I served three years as the S-2 of a U.S. Regular Army mechanized infantry battalion. That's the guy responsible for telling the battalion commander what the heck is happening on the battlefield, in case you didn't know.

I also like to think spending a bit of time over the years with Russian field grade officers in the Caucasus and Transnistria, and elsewhere, has given me a better-rounded view on how military units larger than companies gather information, and act on it.

In my experience, the information CM gives me over the course of a battalion-sized battle against a live opponent is not all that different from NTC or Hohenfels. Sure CM gives hard little indicators sometimes, but real spot reports originate with a thinking (more or less, this was the infantry) human being. That often helps, you can ask the originator more questions. The thought process the player has to go through, as compared to a battalion staff and commander filtering information trying to figure out when to make a move, is often remakably close, from what I can see.

Of course, if you have commanded a RL combat arms battalion at some point in your career, then I owe you an apology. I was only a staff officer.

But I think you haven't.

I'm waiting on that game. I prefer CMBB.

[ September 02, 2005, 02:32 PM: Message edited by: Bigduke6 ]