Battle Scope

[SgtMuhammed]

Originally posted by Bigduke6:

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

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

Steve

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

Not that it comes as a shock or anything. *Sigh* </font>

[Znarf]

HW limitations aside, at 1:1, I cannot imagine a BN level tactical game. Well, I can, and I imagine it to be incredibly tedious - In CMAK, a mechanized US Infantry '42 BN has about 760 men and 80 vehicles. Add some guns into the mix, and some tanks, etc. With a couple of BN's on either side going at it, I doubt - no, I am certain - I would not enjoy cycling though the 2,000 or so discrete units on the map.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Znarf:

HW limitations aside, at 1:1, I cannot imagine a BN level tactical game. Well, I can, and I imagine it to be incredibly tedious - In CMAK, a mechanized US Infantry '42 BN has about 760 men and 80 vehicles. Add some guns into the mix, and some tanks, etc. With a couple of BN's on either side going at it, I doubt - no, I am certain - I would not enjoy cycling though the 2,000 or so discrete units on the map.

I think perhaps you're unclear what a "battalion level tactical game" is. If you were really playing one, you would cycle through 5 or 6 units per battalion.

What you are talking about, with 2000 units, is only a company level tactical game with "lots of units" on the map.

[Znarf]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

I think perhaps you're unclear what a "battalion level tactical game" is. If you were really playing one, you would cycle through 5 or 6 units per battalion.

What you are talking about, with 2000 units, is only a company level tactical game with "lots of units" on the map.

I must be unclear - 5 or 6 units per battalion? In CMAK? What I am talking about - and perhaps the context is incorrect - is a CMx1 game with a BN on the map at the start.

[junk2drive]

MD, I get it. *sigh*

[Steiner14]

While i can understand those lobbying for BTN-battles and upwards, becasue i prefer big-huge CMx1 battles myself, i think you simply transfer your knowledge from CMx1 to CMx2 and are afraid, the smaller battles will become less exciting.

I'm sure the 1:1 representation will create a whole new dimension of complexity and immersion and therefore we will receive way more action in smaller battles.

But also the tactical view can't be projected from CMx1 to CMx2. With relative spotting and all the other enhancements we know until now (i.e. buildings), it will become much more difficult to achieve things.

[Znarf]

Originally posted by junk2drive:

MD, I get it. *sigh*

Well, if you are talking about the level of abstraction of the game itself - that I understand. But my post shoud have be taken in the context of the CM environment - why such niggling?

[Andreas]

Because CM is not a simulation of battalion level tactical warfare.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Znarf:

I must be unclear - 5 or 6 units per battalion? In CMAK?

No, in a "battalion level game", which CMAK is not.

What I am talking about - and perhaps the context is incorrect - is a CMx1 game with a BN on the map at the start.

A CMX1 game with a BN on the map at start is no more a "battalion level game" than a CMX1 game with a single sniper on the map at start is a First Person Shooter.

The number of units on the map do not determine the "Battle Scope"; the type of decision making the player makes determine this.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Znarf:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by junk2drive:

MD, I get it. *sigh*

Well, if you are talking about the level of abstraction of the game itself - that I understand. But my post shoud have be taken in the context of the CM environment - why such niggling? </font>

[Znarf]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

Because the annoying line of logic being presented thus far is that CMX1 is perfectly well capable of portraying battalion command simply because you can cram as many units on the map as there are generally found in a battalion. This is desmonstrably false.

Using a false assumption as a starting point to lobby for not-unimportant changes to the game (for instance, the inclusion of battalion headquarters units) strikes me as ill-considered.

Point taken. You and junk2drive and the rest certainly take these discussions to another level.

Now, what do you guys think about Hero Units?

[hoolaman]

I think anybody thinking the sky will fall because there is no battalion level HQ on map should remember that the battalion level HQ in CMx1 did not do anything at all to fulfill his "IRL" command role.

Any off-map C&C system introduced seems like it could only improve battalion level controls rather than reduce them.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Znarf:

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

Because the annoying line of logic being presented thus far is that CMX1 is perfectly well capable of portraying battalion command simply because you can cram as many units on the map as there are generally found in a battalion. This is desmonstrably false.

Using a false assumption as a starting point to lobby for not-unimportant changes to the game (for instance, the inclusion of battalion headquarters units) strikes me as ill-considered.

Point taken. You and junk2drive and the rest certainly take these discussions to another level.

Now, what do you guys think about Hero Units? </font>

[Bigduke6]

A minimum ratio in the Red Army in an assault is 5 or 6 to one. The goal is to get 10 to 12 to one if you can.

It's western doctrine to say 3 to 1 is a minimum attack ratio.

That sure doesn't sound to me like Steve is thinking in terms of Soviet doctrine. Either that, or it will be an East Front game after all but:

1. Without Soviet assaults, or

2. With Soviet assaults, but the maximum size of the Soviet assaulting force is a group of 3-6 platoons.

We know the game is company level. Which is more likely, a game that will handle 2-3 companies on the attack and one on defense, or 5-6 companies on the attack, and one on the defense?

Since the former is clearly the mindset of the designer, it's not rocket science to figure out what isn't.

Originally posted by sgtgoody (esq):

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Bigduke6:

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

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

Steve

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

Not that it comes as a shock or anything. *Sigh* </font>

[Sergei]

Originally posted by Bigduke6:

A minimum ratio in the Red Army in an assault is 5 or 6 to one. The goal is to get 10 to 12 to one if you can.

It's western doctrine to say 3 to 1 is a minimum attack ratio.

That sure doesn't sound to me like Steve is thinking in terms of Soviet doctrine. Either that, or it will be an East Front game after all but:

1. Without Soviet assaults, or

2. With Soviet assaults, but the maximum size of the Soviet assaulting force is a group of 3-6 platoons.

We know the game is company level. Which is more likely, a game that will handle 2-3 companies on the attack and one on defense, or 5-6 companies on the attack, and one on the defense?

Since the former is clearly the mindset of the designer, it's not rocket science to figure out what isn't.

Either way, how often in a CMBB game do you have ratios like that? Very seldom, because it ain't tactically much of a challenge.

[Zalgiris 1410]

Origionally posted by Battlefront.com:

I have said that the focus of the game is at the COMPANY level. I also specifically said that we won't be doing anything to SUPPORT Battalion or higher level play, though we are not going to purposefully restrict it. There is a HUGE difference between supporting something and not purposefully restricting something.

[c3k]

Gents,

Battalion level is fun. Now, Dorosh, don't bother replying: we know your stance and opinion. My opinion is that CMx1 is fun playing at the battalion vs. reinforced company level.

I certainly hope that CMx2 will be playable with forces at the battalion level.

Regards,

Ken

[Battlefront.com]

I'm going to guess that multi-battalion sized games are not going to be possible for a whlie due to hardware issues. If you went back 7 years ago and tried doing that with CMBO you'd have found it impractical (read "impossible") even on the fastest system.

The 6:1 ratio thing is a joke Nobody plays like that. In fact, I think most people probably play games closer to 2:1 or even 1.5:1. 3:1 was a rule of thumb for Western forces to be "assured" victory. 5 or 6:1 for Soviets, along with CRUDLOADS of artillery. Since nobody plays things that way on a regular basis in any great numbers, why is this relevant to the discussion? Oh wait... I just answered my own question... it isn't

Steve

[Bigduke6]

Fair comment. I stand corrected. Quite right, the priority is replicating scenarios interesting from a game point of view, not a fair cross section of reality.

However, I stick to my prediction, and I am hanging onto my CMBB.

[kipanderson]

Steve,

“The 6:1 ratio thing is a joke Nobody plays like that. In fact, I think most people probably play games closer to 2:1 or even 1.5:1. 3:1 was a rule of thumb for Western forces to be "assured" victory. 5 or 6:1 for Soviets, along with CRUDLOADS of artillery. Since nobody plays things that way on a regular basis in any great numbers, why is this relevant to the discussion? Oh wait... I just answered my own question... it isn't ”

In CMBB I have played a Soviet breakthrough type operation to very close to real world scale. .

We are talking 2km by 3km map, reinforced German infantry battalion in defence, trenches, mines, wire, (mines and wire adjusted for their Uber nature in CMBB). In attack two Soviet infantry battalions, one tank regiment, plus over 3,000 rounds of artillery/rockets. 1,900 rounds of which were 152mm. I have witnessed 600 rockets fired at once.

Believe it or not, but all worked extremely well. Truly massive artillery strikes take surprisingly little resolving, I was amazed.

It all had a surprisingly real world feel to it, the simulation worked far better than I thought it would. Played human v human across the pond. (As the guy I played against said, there we where 3,000 miles apart playing a very reasonable representation of a Soviet breakthrough operation, live… technology is a wonderful thing ).

Anyway… only real problems were Absolute Spotting and Uber obstacles related.

But, as I am always the first to say, I still wish for CMX2 to be optimized for platoon v company size battles, and am happy to wait for the day the hardware can cope with breakthrough operations in CMX2 .

All very good fun,

All the best,

Kip.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by c3k:

Gents,

Battalion level is fun. Now, Dorosh, don't bother replying: we know your stance and opinion. My opinion is that CMx1 is fun playing at the battalion vs. reinforced company level.

No, your opinion is that playing CMX1 is fun when playing with lots and lots of units thrown onto the map; I happen to agree with that opinion.

[Andreas]

Originally posted by kipanderson:

In CMBB I have played a Soviet breakthrough type operation to very close to real world scale. .

Yeah, but you are clearly unhinged.

And you owe me a TCP game.

All the best

Andreas

[kipanderson]

Andreas, hi,

“Yeah, but you are clearly unhinged.

And you owe me a TCP game.”

I would not argue with either statement .

The “unhinged” bit I can do nothing about , but the TCP game we will have work on when your coming big event is over .

All the best,

Kip.

[Pvt. Ryan]

Originally posted by kipanderson:

but the TCP game we will have work on when your coming big event is over .

Congratulations on your Bar Mitzvah.

[Andreas]

I hired Adam Sandler for the music.