Battle Scope

[Bigduke6]

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. Steve

I would say the logical simulation target for a game like CM would be the lowest level where the main ground combat arms combined, and were more or less controlled and coordinated by a single ground commander.

I include artillery both direct and indirect in this mix. Therefore I am talking about infantry, artillery, and usually armor (although in some cases it could be cavalry and helicopters, of course.)

Thing is, different nations, at different times, combined arms differently. Certainly company is the level to shoot for if your goal is replicating typical combat between U.S. and German ground forces in World War Two.

Company is not so hot a level for replicating, say, Soviets in WW2, or just about any one in WWI, or (sometimes) NATO forces in the Cold War era. If it's U.S. civil war or Napoleonics the zoom out would need to be serious, as lowest level where a ground commander typically combined arms was Corps or more rarely Division.

As noted, where Lobsters combine their arms, pincers, mandibles, and fully-segmented legs is their business, and I leave it up to them.

[hellfish]

Steve,

The 172nd Infantry Brigade in Alaska just got their certification as well and is about to deploy to relieve the 1/25th.

And getting back to the whole combined arms focus, I'm reading the semi-official history of OIF right now (titled "On Point") and there was a brigade (battalion?) in the 3rd ID who conducted the entire war using combined arms platoons - they'd have two tanks, two Bradley squads and an engineer squad. They trained together before the war and operated the entire time together. I believe the book said the concept "worked brilliantly" - I'm at work right now, so I can't provide the exact info, but I can post it tonight if anyone's interested.

I know 2-2 Infantry (1st ID) fought like that in Fallujah as well, in the combined arms platoons, though I don't think they normally operated with an engineer squad.

If anyone's interested, there's a really good article that appeared in Army Magazine proposing that each brigade take on the naming and lineage of old WWII divisions. Essentially, the Corps commands we have now would take on the lineage of old Army HQs, Divisions will take on Corps lineages and the UA brigades will take on old divisional lineage.

http://www.ausa.org/pdfdocs/Lowe.pdf

Right now, the 3rd Infantry Division names it's brigades 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th. This new naming convention might rename the divisional HQ to something like VII Corps and it's subordinate brigades might be 2nd Armored, 3rd Infantry, 8th Infantry, and 194th Armored, each with their own shoulder patch.

Kind of a small thing in light of the fact that we're at war and there's lots of other more important things, but I really like the idea.

This is probably getting way off topic, but has anyone else noticed that the American Army is slowly turning into something like the French Army?

Seriously... we're using brigades as our major maneuver force, much of our force is now using armored cars (most French infantry is VAB based), and light cavalry is becoming more prominent (the French Army has had light cavalry brigades with armored cars for years).

[Zalgiris 1410]

Originally posted by Bigduke6:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />From Steve:

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 make a decent case for the scale being correct.

I would say the logical simulation target for a game like CM would be the lowest level where the main ground combat arms combined, and were more or less controlled and coordinated by a single ground commander.

I include artillery both direct and indirect in this mix. Therefore I am talking about infantry, artillery, and usually armour.

Thing is, different nations, at different times, combined arms differently. Certainly company is the level to shoot for if your goal is replicating typical combat between U.S. and German ground forces in World War Two.

Company is not so hot a level for replicating, say, Soviets in WWII because it wasn't the lowest level where a ground commander typically combined arms.</font>

[Battlefront.com]

fytinghellfish,

There are a number of interesting low level unit reorgs that are used for MOUT ops, in particular. Reassignment of weapons, breaking down into smaller, but more plentiful, Fire Teams, consolodating men for litter and ammo bearing, etc. seem to be the norm, though there is no one way to do it. Yet another reason we need to keep the low level TO&E flexible (though not necessarily to the user directly) so that these types of things can be simulated.

One thing to note, as you did, is that these formations were not created "on the fly" in the context of a CM sized battle. They were formed up ahead of the operation, engaged in simulated training, and then deployed already formed up. So it isn't like the CM player could march into an urban area with a vanilla Rifle Platoon and say "Shazam!" and have it instantly transformed into a neat-o-mosquito urban Welcome Wagon unit.

Yeah, the 172nd... kinda odd to see a unit with the official knickname of "Snow Hawks" going to one of the hottest places on Earth

BTW, do you also find it somewhat commical that in order "commit" a unit to "combat" it must be "certified"? Swap out the middle word with another place and you could be talking about a whole 'nother thing altogether Reminds me of the famous bit in Catch-22.

Steve

[hellfish]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

fytinghellfish,

There are a number of interesting low level unit reorgs that are used for MOUT ops, in particular. Reassignment of weapons, breaking down into smaller, but more plentiful, Fire Teams, consolodating men for litter and ammo bearing, etc. seem to be the norm, though there is no one way to do it. Yet another reason we need to keep the low level TO&E flexible (though not necessarily to the user directly) so that these types of things can be simulated.

Very true.

One thing to note, as you did, is that these formations were not created "on the fly" in the context of a CM sized battle. They were formed up ahead of the operation, engaged in simulated training, and then deployed already formed up. So it isn't like the CM player could march into an urban area with a vanilla Rifle Platoon and say "Shazam!" and have it instantly transformed into a neat-o-mosquito urban Welcome Wagon unit.

Actually, one of the big reasons for creating combined arms battalions in the BCT(H) is because in peacetime, the tankers and infantrymen rarely ever trained with each other. Now they'll pretty much have to.

It's a lot easier for a battalion commander to integrate tanks and infantry when they actually belong to him and are on his training schedule, as opposed to a loaner unit from another battalion. I'm curious to see if permanant integrations at the company level spring out of this. Might be beneficial if you have a platoon of tankers show up for first formation and PT formation day in and day out with an infantry company.

I wasn't mech, so I don't know, but does anyone know if there are platoon-level gunnery exercises? Like Table VII or anything? It'd be interesting if the Army ever made a mixed, integrated Abrams/Bradley gunnery range.

Yeah, the 172nd... kinda odd to see a unit with the official knickname of "Snow Hawks" going to one of the hottest places on Earth

I think it's odd that they have Strykers in Alaska. I mean, isn't there snow on the ground for like 3/4ths of the year? Light infantry I can understand, but vehicle-based infantry? :confused: A Hawaii-based Stryker brigade would have made more sense, IMHO. Still, I think the 172nd has the coolest unit patch in the Army. :cool:

BTW, do you also find it somewhat commical that in order "commit" a unit to "combat" it must be "certified"? Swap out the middle word with another place and you could be talking about a whole 'nother thing altogether Reminds me of the famous bit in Catch-22.

Steve

Heh... it's nothing new. We used to have readiness evaluations all the time. When I deployed to Kuwait we had a train up period, but I don't know if we were ever formally certified or not. I think the Stryker guys might get it just because they recently converted.

I know the MEUs all have to certify for commitment on each float - but I think everyone can agree that Marines are already certifiably committable.

[Battlefront.com]

Actually, one of the big reasons for creating combined arms battalions in the BCT(H) is because in peacetime, the tankers and infantrymen rarely ever trained with each other. Now they'll pretty much have to.

Oh, I totally agree. This gives the commander a lot of flexibility on the spot. But it would be, for example, an hour before the operation and last throughout rather than 10 minutes into a fire fight do a Transformers thing and change shape within 5 minutes to fight out the remaining 20 in a totally different org than before.

So in real life there is a ton of extra perks to the new arrangement, but this at a level that is just outside the scope of CMx2.

As an aside, the Russians tried something similar in Grozny after getting their butts handed to them during the first assault on the city. They reorganized their units into fairly large formations that seemed to look a little like the WWII "Shock Army" concept. However, in reality this system didn't work because they simply couldn't coordinate forces at that scale (Brigade?) in a MOUT environment. Interestingly they took the concept and chopped it up into more or less Company? sized forces. This is much more akin to what you described the US forces doing in Iraq. Apparently that, and some other things, is what got them control of Grozny.

BTW, what's your service history? Always curious to know which guys on this Forum have what experience. It's proven quite helpful in the past. If you don't want to say much about it in public, shoot me an email.

Steve

[ September 12, 2005, 03:25 PM: Message edited by: Battlefront.com ]

[hellfish]

No biggie. Just an infantryman from '95-'01 in the US Army and Illinois Guard. Got the need to blow stuff up out of my system, college money and that's about it.

[vincere]

Apparently that, and some other things, is what got them control of Grozny.

Like som many armies they forgot lessons learned before (WW2) in this case. Their ad-hoc assault troops made liberal use of fuel-air weapons.

I read an analysis that said they also formed a flame-thrower battalion.

[SgtMuhammed]

No such thing as "Just an infantryman."

Pretty interesting all the stuff they have done to my army in the five years I have been out. It would be really nice if they started doing more combined arms training. Usually we grunts only saw armor during trips to NTC or to the real thing.

[hellfish]

Heh.. yeah, sgtgoody. The only times I saw armor was when it was shooting those ATWESS things at me, or I was shooting at it. I was a TC on a 113 for an NTC OPFOR rotation. That was fun - especially the time I proved that 113s really could fly.

Oddly enough, I just got a call from a recruiter about thirty seconds ago to see if I wanted to re-up. :eek:

[stoat]

You said you were in the Illinois Guard. Where was your training center? I have some friends that train here in Marseilles. I have also seen 113s here on several occasions.

[hellfish]

I did my initial 113 training near Brookfield Zoo (can't remember the name of the depot - West something), my initial driver training at Marseilles, and certification at Atterbury in Indiana.

Our range complex was at Marseilles, but we spent most weekends at the Joliet Training Area, a giant thorny dump near the oil refineries off 55.

[stoat]

Right there in beautiful Elwood. If Illinois had an enema, Elwood would be it.

[hellfish]

Not Rockford?

I always hated Rockford...

[Private Bluebottle]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />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. </font>

[Private Bluebottle]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />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 </font>

[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

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Private Bluebottle:

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

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />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. </font>

[Zalgiris 1410]

Private Bluebottle mate, the BFC has satisfied me enough that we will eventually be able to play the bigger sized stuff somewhere in the future with CMx2. We just wont be able to at first.

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.

So in a ways I'm actually looking forward to getting to play that lower level properly & much more enjoyably given the scope restrictions of CMx2, since I've avoided that so far in CMx1 I guess I've been missing out on something here.

I have also avoided playing in towns and cities for similar reasons because I also don't think CMx1 is good in that kind of urban terrain environment, though it has been very good for village fighting IMHO, but I usually play village battles with multiple Btln forces...

May be the BFCs ought to think about doing something extra with the CMx1 engine and puting out a completely combined CMBO/BB/AK version 1.4 with just only some worthy minor improvements at some time in the interium, what'd ya think?

[ September 13, 2005, 09:25 AM: Message edited by: Zalgiris 1410 ]

[Michael Dorosh]

My opinion on all this is that once company-level stuff is done well - it hasn't been yet - the system can naturally progress to bigger and better. Possibly. Or maybe it will be the best game ever, as a company level game, an no one will want to play bigger stuff.

Don't know. Certain types of games lend themselves to a certain scale and treatment. You couldn't do a grand strategic game like Strategic Command, or Avalon Hill's Third Reich, as a first person shooter. You couldn't do a man-to-man combat game like Operation Flashpoint as a turn based WEGO affair with 1 minute turns like Combat Mission has.

I don't think a regimental sized game would benefit from a CM treatment either - Steve is correct in that in order to do that well, you'd need to remove the squads and teams from the player's control, maybe even lose the 1:1 representation altogether.

I'm looking forward to the 1:1 rep of CMX2; even CMBO et al were immersive despite the limited graphical depiction of ingame events. I think the naysayers need to wait and see - check out Gpig's illustration of just how many men a company has; a company battle in CMX2 will have more onscreen "characters" than a battalion fight in CM1 right now. Lots to see and do.

I am guessing there will be opportunities to simulate larger stuff the way ASL et al do it and simply abstract forces on the board, or scale down forces to make something more playable. Time will tell.

Steel Panthers scaled up, incidentally, from company sized games to regimental sized games. SP3 sucked as far as I was concerned; it went from squad sized maneuver units to platoon sized, and didn't do it well.

[Zalgiris 1410]

I agree with you Michael Dorosh that this company-level stuff wasn't done well enough in CMx1, but from what Steve's been posting it sounds like that is what's almost entirely going on their BBQ. The system will hopefully progress to the bigger scale which is better IMHO, because that is where my interest is, it want matter if CMx2 is the best game ever as a company level game I'll still want to play the bigger scope.

IME I've found the CMx1 games lend themselves to the treatment of the larger scale than the company size intend and I expext that CMx2 will do the same when it provides the flexibility.

I think even regimental sized games will be successfully handled by the CMx2 engine eventually too, and ultimately treated better than CMx1 does with all the improvements shining through. I don't think that some people realise that already when playing Regimental sized battles that there are more units/pixtels on the map than the number there are going to be with the 1:1 representation for company battles will be. I fully enough understand that there are massive implications if that size is attemted to be handled in CMx2 though! However I don't agree MD that in order to do that well, the BFCs would need to remove the squads and teams from the player's control or such like, since we'll all just have to waite until technology allows us to process for that.

Only then for me will there fully be lots to see and do enough. *drools*

[Paul AU]

Sorry, but I had to re-quote this:

"Our bombs are smarter than the average high school student. At least they can find Kuwait."

(Quoted by fytinghellfish ).

(The quote is as smart as you want it to be).

[Battlefront.com]

Steel Panthers scaled up, incidentally, from company sized games to regimental sized games.

As far as I am concerned SP was a Battalion level game. See earlier post about the levels of command. It's going back many years for me since I last looked at this, but infantry was organized in platoons, right? That automatically puts them one step above CM's IMHO.

Steve

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Steel Panthers scaled up, incidentally, from company sized games to regimental sized games.

As far as I am concerned SP was a Battalion level game. See earlier post about the levels of command. It's going back many years for me since I last looked at this, but infantry was organized in platoons, right? That automatically puts them one step above CM's IMHO.

Steve </font>

[Private Bluebottle]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

Sorry, you really need to go back and read the entire thread; you're just repeating the same uninformed posts from several pages ago. [/QB]

I had, when I made my original comment. I still stand by it.