East Front

[Urban Shocker]

In the late 90's Talonsoft released a series of games called East Front, West Front, and Rising Sun. The scale of these games would make some of them appropriate for conversion to CMC. Of course, East Front would be the only relevant one for conversion purposes but given that force compositions, maps, conditions, etc, are already researched it might make for some relatively easily developed campaigns.

The reason I mention this is that those of us who have this game could start making maps and setting up force compositions for each side. I realize that we do not know exactly how everything will fit together until CMC is released but we could start doing some basic things.

So,

1) Hunter, if you could give a bit of advice on what we could do using the CMBB scenario editor to prepare for CMC's release it might give some of us something to do to pass the time and create pleasant feelings toward CMC? .

2) Perhaps the rest of us could look through the East Front scenarios to determine which would be appropriate given the description of CMC already given. Some are too large for sure but could be maybe be broken down into smaller campaigns while others are appropriately sized.

3) If interested, post your thoughts here and we'll see how far the ball rolls!

[ January 08, 2007, 08:37 AM: Message edited by: Urban Shocker ]

[Peterk]

If you start drawing the CMBB maps you can't go wrong.

[Michael Dorosh]

I started a thread on this topic over a year ago; there seemed to be little interest in synthesizing ideas on who might do which campaigns; given the time that has elapsed since then, I'd be surprised to see much interest now.

In any event, though, I agree that starting your research would not be a bad idea. If nothing else, the maps could be used for a "paper" campaign system. Given JasonC's comments in other threads on scalable battle areas, it might even be an optimal solution?

One word of advice, I'd try and keep your campaign down to divisional sized; an entire corps would probably generate a LOT of CMBB battles once CM:C is released. As tempting as it would be to release all of Stalingrad...

Oh, and if you have a pet, little known campaign, I'd say go for it. The "official" list of campaigns that is on the website seems to hit all the big ones - no need for you to draw the Dzerhezinsky Tractor Factory and environs in painstaking detail in a bunch of CMBB maps and then find out those maps already came with the game!

I don't think a finalized list of campaigns has been released though, so even your "pet" may already be covered?

But if you can find a really decent divisional history, I think that once CM:C is released, there would be a lot of appreciative people. If you have access to TalonSoft's stuff, it is possible the game devs do too...no way of knowing what will be included in the release yet.

[Runyan99]

I agree that East Front is good fodder for CMC ideas.

'Kampfgruppe von Weitersheim' (or similar spelling) was one East Front scenario I tried to turn into a CMBB operation. It could probably be a CMC campaign as well.

Only problem is we still don't know when or if we are ever going to get CMC, or if it is even playable...

[Hpt. Lisse]

Does Eastern Front even run on WinXP? Through an emulator maybe?

[Urban Shocker]

There is a East Front scenario from July 1942 called "Counterattack on the Oka." The Russians have put up a couple of pontoon bridges on the Oka River and have established a tenuous bridgehead. The German force is to counterattack and eliminate the bridgehead. The map size was 8 x 10 km and the forces involved were given as:

Russia (97th Tank Brigade) consisting of:

2 tank battalions

1 motorized infantry battalion

1 engineer battalion

2 squadrons of Guards cavalry

1 anti-aircraft company

2 anti-tank batteries

trucks to move things around

German forces (1 Panzer Regiment) consisting of:

4 panzer companies

3 motorized infantry companies

2 AT Platoons (Marders)

2 Heavy AA Batteries (88 mm)

1 Engineer platoon

2 Self-propelled Gun Platoons (150 mm)

1 Recon Company

Haltracks and Trucks for transportation

Does this seem reasonable? I have started making the 2 x 2 km maps (20 total) for this campaign.

[Michael Dorosh]

Sounds perfect, US. Even if CM:C isn't to your liking, I am sure you (or others, if you tired of it) would make excellent use of whatever material/maps/etc. you prepare.

[Brown]

Hi all !

I remember a very interesting east front scenario in september '43: Kanev. I not remember exactly the scenario name, this evening at home I can search it and say more.

The scenario was based on a combined soviet attack with paratroops and tanks across the river, the map comprise various type of terrain.

On german side I remember fortifications and AT batteries as well as Marder III platoon and many other interesting units.

[Urban Shocker]

The Bridge at Kanev

Kanev, 100km SE of Kiev: During their advance in 1943, the Soviet High Command did not make a single serious attempt to seize the huge bridge at Kanev on the Dnieper. Apparently the Soviets doubted their ability to pull off the same kind of operation against a vital river crossing that the Germans had repeatedly performed since the beginning of the war. Instead they did nothing of the kind, relying on their improvising skills to cross such watery obstacles without solid bridges. Unfortunately this took time and allowed the Germans to make good their escape and for the preparation of new defensive positions further west. This scenario examines the possibility of what might have happened if the Russians had used the 1st Guards Airborne Brigade in conjunction with a drive by the 51st Tank Brigade to seize the bridges at Kanev. Defending the bridges are elements of the 10th Panzergrenadier Division, holding open the only escape route for the retreating German divisions.

[Brown]

Hi all

Found the details of the battle

Bridge at Kanev 23/9/1943

Map size about 10 x 8 km

Soviet Force

- 1st Gaurds Airborne Brigade

1st Btn

2nd Btn

1st Artillery Btn

1st Guards Airborne Engineer Company

1st Airborne Mortar company

1st Airborne AT Btn ( 57mm AT Guns)

- 51 Tank Brigade

315/51 Tank Btn( T34/M43 )

316/51 Tank Btn( T34/M41 )

51° Mot Rifle Btn

51° AA Company

6° Gds Rocket Company

189° SU Regiment ( SU 76 )

1/272 Gds Mortar Btn

2/272 Gds Mortar Btn

German Force

- 10° Panzergrenadier Division

20/10 PzGrd Regiment ( 2 Battallion )

10° Mot. AT Btn ( Marder III and 75mm AT )

275/10 Mot AA Btn ( 88mm, 37mm and 20mm )

10° Mot. Eng. Btn

7° Assault Gun Btn ( Stug IIIG )

Brown

[Renaud]

Bridge at Kanev sounds really interesting. I presume that's an airborne drop of the 1st Bgde?

I've already made a 3x2 and a 4x2 km map of the feb '42 Novorossisk battles (operation 'Morsky') that I could easily expand to 6x2 or 8x4 for CMC. The 1st scenario is available at TPG under author 'RENAUD' if anyone's curious. The 2nd should be ready in a week or so.

It takes SO LONG to translate a large 1:50,000 map to CMBB. I think for any larger campaign I would auto-generate the majority of the tiles, adding roads and water features as necessary, focusing manual efforts on a limited number of strategic tiles.

[Brown]

Originally posted by Renaud:

Bridge at Kanev sounds really interesting. I presume that's an airborne drop of the 1st Bgde?

I've already made a 3x2 and a 4x2 km map of the feb '42 Novorossisk battles (operation 'Morsky') that I could easily expand to 6x2 or 8x4 for CMC. The 1st scenario is available at TPG under author 'RENAUD' if anyone's curious. The 2nd should be ready in a week or so.

It takes SO LONG to translate a large 1:50,000 map to CMBB. I think for any larger campaign I would auto-generate the majority of the tiles, adding roads and water features as necessary, focusing manual efforts on a limited number of strategic tiles.

Yes, in East Front was a parachute drop, if is possible simulate loss due the drop (10% or 20% and so on ) for different ground type in landing zone there is no problem.

If ew have a detailed map of that zone I can design some CMMB maps.

[JasonC]

East Front runs just fine in XP.

Problems with the EF series was mostly the clumsy user interface. It just took ages to control a large battle. The movement system is single unit select, move each hex, order each shot, all actions expending action points and interleaved any way you like.

Therefore the strategy of the thing is to interleave their movements in ways that crack the enemy to make opportunities within the turn, exploiting them with other units before it gets to be the enemy's turn. Defenders do get to fire back when a unit moves in their presence, though, so this isn't one-sided.

There were also unrealistic bits about the fire combat resolution, of the form lots o littles a bit too strong and some of the way stacks were handled. But all were livable, and an improvement over the Panzerblitz origins of the design. The clusmy interface, though, really restricted the playable scale to a battalion (works, actually playable) to a regiment (feels "monster" and takes hours).

Since the whole point of going up to platoon units was supposed to be to open a larger scale, eh. Yeah there were big scenarios but they were unplayable.

A better platoon scale system is the board wargame series Panzergrenadier.

And the ideal thing for CM campaigns is a company scale system, but one with low unit density, discouraging stacking, platoon steps etc. The tendency is for almost all wargame systems to put hundreds of whatever scale of unit is picked as "atomic", on the map. That allows 4-5 command spans higher than the atom for the strategic overall scale. But it is not what is wanted for a strategic layer, with underlying resolution coming from a different system.

Instead you want a significant gap between the overlying and the underlying, and you want a quite small command span at the overlying level. You cannot resolve fights between 100s of units each above the size of the atoms of the resolving system - it is a delusive hope.

The limit is human playing time, and is iron. No system can allow squad level resolution with individual man losses of an army or corps level combat. The number of decisions is simply too large for a few human commanders to make.

What you can do, is simulate battalion, regimental, or at a maximum division level combat (really thinking of the last only for the attacking side, and typically moving full battalions as stacks), at a company scale on a strategic map, and resolve the actual fights at the squad or platoon level. At company scale, those strat layers have only 5-25 sudformations to command, which is the managable scale for an "overlayer".

The managable scale for the CM tactical fights is 1-3 companies on a side. It is not playable if the smaller side has a reinforced battalion and the larger side then tries to get odds against that.

I continue to recommend players try *battalion* scale campaigns first. You get all of the advantages of realistic repeated combat and the loss concerns and time relations campaigns offer, without unplayable giantism. At a maximum, try a defending battalion and an attacking regiment, with the latter having a staged or delayed arrival or commitment.

Forces moving on the strategic layer should be company groups, with platoon strength discrimination. Not full reinforced battalions - the latter will impose giantism on the tactical fights. You need to resolve scores of these things and several per week, in parallel, to keep a campaign moving.

No campaign level movement (from slow resolution I mean) equals not much point to having the campaign layer. The "strategic" situation has to feel like it has changed within a month of play time due to actions taken by the players, to sustain the interest.

To make companies the natural contestants, tactical maps need to be able to shrink to km or sub km scale.

I go over all this best way to run them stuff again, because I do not see CMC coming anytime soon. We should get on with playable CM campaigns by other means. If they give us something later that knocks our socks off in playability etc, great. But I for one and through waiting around for that to happen.

[Urban Shocker]

JC, point well taken...again! Look at the OOB for "Counterattack on the Oka," above. How would you "minaturize" it to be more playable? Would it just be a matter of reducing things by half or a third so that everything from the original battle is in but just reduced in size?

Or should a subsection of the battle be focused on where some units participated and others did not? Although, it might be difficult to find details like that .

[JasonC]

When making a single CM scenario, think how you'd realistically design it and then divide everything by 6, and the map scale by 2 each direction. Sometimes by 9 or 12, even, for the forces, and by 3 for each direction in map size. Giantism kills most stand alone scenarios and there are very few that would not benefit from this treatment.

For a campaign, make that divisor 3, and reduce the scale roughly half. The particular case presented would become a campaign pitting -

airborne force -

2 airborne companies each 3 platoons plus a small weapons section with MMGs and 50mm mortars and ATRs, 2 of each.

1 pioneer platoon

gun sections of 4 76mm or 76mm FO at player's option, and 3 82mm on map or 82mm 6-tube Fo at players option.

gun section of 4 57mm.

total of 12 platoon sized units

tank force -

2 tank companies (-) each command T-34, 2 platoons each 3 T-34, total 14 tanks

2 SU sections each 3 SU-76

(total 6 AFV platoons to assign with 20 AFVs)

1 motor rifle company of 3 platoons each with ATR

1 weapons section with HQ, 2 MMG, 2 82mm

All 4 of those platoons should have 4 trucks.

AA MG platoon with HQ, 3 50 cals, 2 M3 halftracks

1 132mm rocket FO, M-13 model (one shot only)

1 120mm mortar FO

(7 others to assign here, 3 infantry, 2 MG, 2 FO)

Germans -

2 panzer grenadier companies each 3 platoons plus weapons platoon with Co HQ, platoon HQ, 4xHMG, 2x81mm mortar

3 pioneer platoons, type with 4 motorized squads, reduce FTs to 2 each.

2 additional HMG platoons each HQ, 4xHMG.

6 tube 81mm radio FO

LeIG section with 2x75mm leIG, 2 Kubelwagen

StuG platoon with 3 StuG III G

Marder platoon with 4 Marder III

88 Flak battery with HQ, 3 88 flak, HMG, 4 Sdkfz

2 75mm PAK battery each HQ, 4 75mm PAK, HMG, 4 Sdkfz

2 37mm Flak battery each HQ, 3 37mm Flak, 3 Sdkfz

German total 2 AFV platoons and 3 heavy AT batteries to counter the Russian tanks. Also 4 light Flak or IG, 5 HMG, 9 infantry type, and 1-2 FO.

Other than the 81mm, no arty listed, but might realistically have 1 105mm FO in addition (unclear).

Total command span on the operational map is 25 platoon sized units or FO support, assigned to half a dozen company sized battle groups. The Russians have a 3 to 1 AFV advantage but only 3 to 2 if serious guns are added. Infantry is basically even, 10 vs. 9 plus 4 MG type vs. 5. The Russians have an edge in artillery, as well.

I might add 2 SMG platoons of tank riders to the Russian OOB for balance and to let them fight according to doctrine. Those would be "married" to the 4 tank T-34 platoons, the ones with the command tanks attached.

The sector can be 5 maps wide, each a km on a side, and the operational area can be up to 4 maps deep. That is wide enough that you will have some thin areas. Terrain should not all be equally passable - some areas should be swamp or heavily forested or screened by river etc.

You can have all the interest of the airborne perhaps being separated from the tanks at the start, the Germans having strong gun based AT defense but needing to put it in the right spots to stop the Russian tanks. The Germans have limited AFVs and infantry to spare for fighting the airborne before they are relieved, and the airborne have decent gun defense of their own, but only in 2 locations. If they stray from those they are vulnerable being hit by a StuG-PzGdr team etc.

I'd somewhat balance the arty by giving the Germans their 105mm FO, just one, and by the following "ammo states" for the different support modules -

Russian 76mm and 82mm with airborne -

can be used on map no penalties regardless.

Firing indirect as FOs, ammo state is "limited" until second op-turn after link-up with tank force, then becomes "normal".

Limited means after any FO use, FO use is unavailable in subsequent op turns until the Russian rolls a "1" on one die to restore ammo (including turn fired). Normal means 1-3.

Russian 120mm ammo state is normal.

Russian 132mm ammo state is limited, or alternately might be a one shot item, then no longer available for the rest of the campaign.

German 81mm and 105mm FOs are normal.

FOs have to be assigned to a specific location with a company commander and can only be used there that op turn.

That will keep the respective artilleries from just running the enemy out of men over a few op turns.

This would be a quite playable campaign. Every move and every fight would matter, and the outcome would really turn on key fights, would develop rapidly, etc. The original would be unplayably large and the extra scale would add essentially nothing.

I hope this helps.

[Brown]

Of course my intention is not a "pure copy" of an East Front scenario.

My purpose is starting from an idea to setup a playable CMC game; may be that "Bridge at Kanev" is too large, but with the news in my hand is impossible to know this.

A map of 8km x 6km is playable at strategic level in CMC ?

And the CMMB maps must be of "scenario" or "campaign" type.

A size of 2000m x 2000m is applicable or is better 1000m x 1000m ?

Thanks

[Sequoia]

Originally posted by JasonC:

But all were livable, and an improvement over the Panzerblitz origins of the design.

A better platoon scale system is the board wargame series Panzergrenadier.

Couldn't one translate scenarios then from the original Panzer Blitz game (which I have)?

Those with Panzer Grenadier could do the same.

[PFMM]

CMC the hope that will not die!

On a more relevent note there are some interesting points in this thread, and while we are are on the subject of having multiple scales of resolution I'd make one point that seems to be lost on a lot of scenario designers.

This is the lack of penalties for players who mass all their troops magically in one location. The super or killer stack. It doesn't matter if one drives two tanks down a road or fifty, as I can can coordinate them better than any ballet and they're less vunerable as I can mass all my anti aircraft guns along with them. In reality it would be a complete **** up with more own losses than those inflicted by the enemy.

And it also feels ridiculous to tell each of ten, twenty and even more than thirty tanks where their gun barrels should be pointing.

[Urban Shocker]

A size of 2000m x 2000m is applicable or is better 1000m x 1000m ?

I was thinking about this and I concluded that if armor is involved and the terrain is open or lightly treed the maps should probably be 2 x 2 km. My reason is that if tanks are going to be meeting other tanks, AT Guns, or whatever and the maps are 1 x 1 km then some of the tanks that were designed to engage targets outside of 1 km would be at a unhistorical disadvantage.

Now, if the maps have lots of forest or hills then this seems like less of an issue since tanks or other guns are less likely to be engaging targets at greater than 1 km.

PFMM: Until I here otherwise from BFC, I'm assuming that CMC will be released.

[JasonC]

US - an example of unsound one-entry reasoning.

The result of picking 2 km scale because you think it is more fair to Panther or Tiger tanks or whatever, is that the infantry component of the game, which is the main one, has to take as its minimum operational unit, sufficient infantry to hold 2 km of frontage. And if anything like historical fighting is intended, that means aiming at the historical density of infantry per 2 km of frontage, as the standard size of one tactical battle.

And that means roughly a battalion on the thinner side.

Then because there is an operational layer, you have to scale that up by an order of magnitude to get the forces actually to fight, so you get divisions.

And then to get odds on a battalion holding its 2 km of frontage, the attacker wants to send nearly a regiment.

And those unit scales are simply unplayable in CM, or nearly so.

Meanwhile, for the campaign to move, you have to play not 1-2 of those, but 20 of them. And to sustain any interest, you need to finish them at a rate of one every week or two, in sequence (however many you run in parallel).

Commanding a regiment on 4 square kilometers TCP IP is a non starter.

If you artificially keep the unit density down to avoid all this, you get tiny forces for the space, empty maps, long boring recons, arty ineffective for lack of large targets etc.

All because somebody has the brain storm that the only thing that matters is how far away his Panther can shoot a T-34.

You aren't designing a tank driving arcade game. You are designing an operational layer for combined arms fighting, infantry heavy in fact, for a game system whose natural scale is reinforced company, that becomes a grand tactical "monster" command span when there is a full battalion present. Making the latter only playable as an occasional thing for the highest "stacked", attacking side.

Worse it hard coding that decision instead of letting the scale vary with the campaign, among a set of options (500, 1000, 2000 if you like). A campaign set in the Hurtgen forest with mostly infantry, on 2 km maps, will be Hansel and Grettle lost in the woods looking for breadcrumbs. A campaign set in downtown Stalingrad rubble and factories with a 2 km by 2 km map will be "To the Volga - the Weekly Edition".

This is what happens when we don't think these things through...

[Urban Shocker]

JC,

I don't think that I threw up the "tank straw man" that you "knocked down" in your recent post.

I think of each unit or piece of equipment like a chess piece and, as such, they each have unique capabilities. By scaling maps certain ways you can enhance or diminish these capabilities. I realize that you know this but bear with me.

You said that infantry was the main focus of the game although it seems that BFC has put an incredible amount of effort into realistically modeling all of the components except for maybe air support. From other posts in other threads I gather you think this because of the number units (individual pieces) that can be reasonably moved around while creating an entertaining game. Fair enough but I disagree that every campaign or battle will become beholden to the infantry.

The reason I disagree is because: (a) in real world war 2 battles the infantry was useless, bypassed, stranded, and cut off by more mobile forces; and ( this element will exist in CMC so that CMC transforms CMBB into a more mobile-unit friendly game and so map size should probably reflect this aspect in those particular campaigns.

I know that you are concerned about "stacking" and playability. I am as well and have little patient for "huge" scenarios. I also have vastly inferior campaign-playing and managing experience than you but I would like to say that in a campaign I would hope there is always an option of, as Liddell Hart says, the indirect approach. Indeed, if both players know before the first turn that the campaign will be decided by a concentration of most of their firepower at point X on the map then it really would be a waste of the CMC design. I think that CMC will give options for winning other than attrition (e.g. lowered morale or supplies).

So in response to your putting a battalion on a 2 km front I would try to circumvent them and cut them off from supplies and so on. It seems just as good or better a strategy as bludgeoning them with a regiment.

Good scenarios that take advantage of CMC would be something where both sides have to defend and attack. For example, in the "Oka" scenario above the russians might be required to hold and expand the bridgehead while the german mission might be to prevent a breakthrough and reduce the brdigehead. Both sides have to take initiative and in those cases somebody might stick their neck out too far.

[JasonC]

No, infantry was not ineffective. It held 80% of the front or more practically all of the time, while the armor danced in and out in a few areas. Operational scale means precisely that you don't cherry pick only the areas where the armor is dancing but get the whole section of the front.

Also, infantry force type includes its heavy weapons, guns, and artillery, as well as engineers and obstacles, and was entirely effective at stopping tanks, unless the latter were extremely concentrated. As in, 30, 50 or 100 tanks on 1-2 km of breakthrough frontage.

And no, you can't deal with the infantry battalion on one map by going around, because at typical force to space there will be an infantry battalion on every map. (A few nearly impassable areas - for vehicles I mean - may be screened less densely).

The standard deployment of the defenders in WW II was a company on a kilometer, then deployed 2 up 1 back, so a battalion goes on a single op square if you require 2 km maps. If the attackers want an odds edge they will have to order around more than a battalion of infantry, as well as a company or more of tanks.

WW II was not tac ops.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Urban Shocker:

The reason I disagree is because: (a) in real world war 2 battles the infantry was useless, bypassed, stranded, and cut off by more mobile forces;

Which comic book is this out of?

[Urban Shocker]

Gentlemen,

I can't engage you on your terms. Both of you are 100x more knowledgable of WWII than I but I have read much more than the average person on the subject so I don't think my impressions are without merit.

JC,

As I mentioned you have run campaigns and played in them whereas I have not other than solo campaigns of the sort that ROBO has put together. I know, not the same. You have taken your experiences and tried to apply them to the design of CMC campaigns and so have I. I guess we'll both find out when (fingers crossed) it is released. Until we can collect the "data" from CMC you and I both have hypotheses that no amount of debating now will solve.

MD,

The events I am talking about involve footborne infantry (not motorized) which when bypassed or flanked by mobile forces (incl. motorized infantry) became extremely vulnerable to being cut off from supplies or escape which I take it is very depressing to the soldiers and takes away their will (and bullets and food) to fight. I think this occurred in Poland '39, France '40, North Africa, Russia,and Europe '44-45.

I'm not sure if your testing my scant knowledge or have never heard of infantry surrendering because they were cut off from escape? This probably happens to tanks and other units as well but not as frequently.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Urban Shocker:

Gentlemen,

I can't engage you on your terms. Both of you are 100x more knowledgable of WWII than I but I have read much more than the average person on the subject so I don't think my impressions are without merit.

JC,

As I mentioned you have run campaigns and played in them whereas I have not other than solo campaigns of the sort that ROBO has put together. I know, not the same. You have taken your experiences and tried to apply them to the design of CMC campaigns and so have I. I guess we'll both find out when (fingers crossed) it is released. Until we can collect the "data" from CMC you and I both have hypotheses that no amount of debating now will solve.

MD,

The events I am talking about involve footborne infantry (not motorized) which when bypassed or flanked by mobile forces (incl. motorized infantry) became extremely vulnerable to being cut off from supplies or escape which I take it is very depressing to the soldiers and takes away their will (and bullets and food) to fight. I think this occurred in Poland '39, France '40, North Africa, Russia,and Europe '44-45.

I'm not sure if your testing my scant knowledge or have never heard of infantry surrendering because they were cut off from escape? This probably happens to tanks and other units as well but not as frequently.

I wasn't aware isolated examples of units out of contact surrendering was the norm, though. I don't think the statement stands up to any kind of serious scrutiny. As pointed out, tanks made up a small proportion of actual forces involved, and the majority of tactical actions fought on any front were done without armour, and where armour was used, I think "breakout" operations were in a minority also as compared to instances of combined-arms or infantry support.

The infantry was far from useless in any event.

A look at some battle narratives suggest armour and infantry co-operation was more normal, and that both relied on each other:

http://www.canadiansoldiers.com/mediawiki-1.5.5/index.php?title=Kapelsche_Veer

http://www.canadiansoldiers.com/mediawiki-1.5.5/index.php?title=Leonforte

http://www.canadiansoldiers.com/mediawiki-1.5.5/index.php?title=Valguarnera