Jump to content

The death knell for CM1 tactics?


Recommended Posts

Following the discussion about defending against vastly out numbered forces I have a question aimed at people who play Shock Force as well as CM1. What gamey tactics will not work when playing CM2 (I am assuming that CM2 will develop the new engine in the modern version). I'm thinking about the death of borg spotting, but what about the revised LOS/track each bullet mechanisms/1 to 1 representations/better terrain tiles etc. In short which real world tactics will be viable in CM2 and which gamey ones die a horrid death?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Following up on what Stalin's Organist said, I think overwatch will have much more difficulty in identifying and neutralizing enemy targets. In CMSF, we don't see this as a huge issue (especially for the US) because of the advanced sensors, optics etc. But imagine buttoned T-34's trying to pick up MG-42's in cover. It will probably take a while. This will also likely make PAK much more effective and concentrated tank attacks more risky.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good point. How far do tactics in CM really comprise of negating the advantages of the opponent, manipulating the weaknesses in the CM engine, and of course vice versa. I'm thinking about Jason's posts about tank riders and how effective they are

Infantry spots MG/PAK, telepathically relays information to T-34's positioned hundreds of metres behind infantry

T-34's all aquire target, target destroyed

Wash, rinse, repeat till victory

Compare this with

MG's open fire on infantry, PAK's open up on T-34's

Infantry scramble for cover, some gaining spots on the MG/PAK's but cannot relay the information by voice command due to T-34's buttoned and desperately scanning for targets.

Because MG's/PAK's are not overwhelmed by return fire after 1-2 shots gunners can now mutually support each other. If the infantry can see the PAK's they cannot tell the tankers, if the tankers can spot the MG's they cannot communicate with the infantry.

Yes, I do know about the use of non verbal signaling methods but these would be deployed individually, not allowing massed return fire. Sure some MG/PAK's would be KO'd by a lucky shot, but most would live another day. That is until they ran into the flanking force that over ran the blocking strongpoint and the survivors were unable to get back in time to tell HQ.

I always thought that once a movement order had been given it should not be allowed to change, unless that unit had information, or the battlefield situation allowed it to do so. Steel Panthers III engine was much flawed but it had an interesting command system. Units under an HQ were all given a single objective on the map, this cost command points to issue, which were recovered at a rate commensurate with the HQ quality. If units wanted to deviate, from heading towards the objective marker, they would be penalised by having the HQ's remaining command points reduced. In practice, an elite panzer company could react to a local situation by sending its platoons away from the main objective as it had enough points left after issuing the original objective and a Soviet tank company from 41 either had to either sit until it built up its command points, as it had expended its total to issue the objective, or maintain its present progress. The recovery rate of the German unit was faster than the Russian, so its OODA loop was correspondingly faster.

I well remember my frustration at a PLO command unit as it waited to build up its HQ points to change the direction of its platoons that were being pinned by an Israeli SFMG platoon. By the time the objective marker could be changed the available flanking route had been blocked by a mechanised paratroop company, who had changed objective and raced across the map! Oh, and if the HQ wanted to call down artillery they had to use command points as well and if they were suppressed then the command points were affected. Not perfect at all but a clever little system that showed the importance of communication.

I know that CM has command delays but I find it strange to penalise a platoon and not an HQ. Most accounts I have read of Soviet platoon actions were full of the use of initiative and quick commands, the trouble seems to have come about when the company commanders got involved, then the incompetence and inertia set in. The, what is an HQ unit in CM for is for another thread though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good point. How far do tactics in CM really comprise of negating the advantages of the opponent, manipulating the weaknesses in the CM engine, and of course vice versa. I'm thinking about Jason's posts about tank riders and how effective they are

Infantry spots MG/PAK, telepathically relays information to T-34's positioned hundreds of metres behind infantry

T-34's all aquire target, target destroyed

Wash, rinse, repeat till victory

Compare this with

MG's open fire on infantry, PAK's open up on T-34's

Infantry scramble for cover, some gaining spots on the MG/PAK's but cannot relay the information by voice command due to T-34's buttoned and desperately scanning for targets.

Because MG's/PAK's are not overwhelmed by return fire after 1-2 shots gunners can now mutually support each other. If the infantry can see the PAK's they cannot tell the tankers, if the tankers can spot the MG's they cannot communicate with the infantry.

Yes, I do know about the use of non verbal signaling methods but these would be deployed individually, not allowing massed return fire. Sure some MG/PAK's would be KO'd by a lucky shot, but most would live another day. That is until they ran into the flanking force that over ran the blocking strongpoint and the survivors were unable to get back in time to tell HQ.

I always thought that once a movement order had been given it should not be allowed to change, unless that unit had information, or the battlefield situation allowed it to do so. Steel Panthers III engine was much flawed but it had an interesting command system. Units under an HQ were all given a single objective on the map, this cost command points to issue, which were recovered at a rate commensurate with the HQ quality. If units wanted to deviate, from heading towards the objective marker, they would be penalised by having the HQ's remaining command points reduced. In practice, an elite panzer company could react to a local situation by sending its platoons away from the main objective as it had enough points left after issuing the original objective and a Soviet tank company from 41 either had to either sit until it built up its command points, as it had expended its total to issue the objective, or maintain its present progress. The recovery rate of the German unit was faster than the Russian, so its OODA loop was correspondingly faster.

I well remember my frustration at a PLO command unit as it waited to build up its HQ points to change the direction of its platoons that were being pinned by an Israeli SFMG platoon. By the time the objective marker could be changed the available flanking route had been blocked by a mechanised paratroop company, who had changed objective and raced across the map! Oh, and if the HQ wanted to call down artillery they had to use command points as well and if they were suppressed then the command points were affected. Not perfect at all but a clever little system that showed the importance of communication.

I know that CM has command delays but I find it strange to penalise a platoon and not an HQ. Most accounts I have read of Soviet platoon actions were full of the use of initiative and quick commands, the trouble seems to have come about when the company commanders got involved, then the incompetence and inertia set in. The, what is an HQ unit in CM for is for another thread though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There does seem to be a strange reluctance to credit tank crews the ability to use the Mk1 eyeball as a method for spotting. When an ATG fires there is noise and dust generated - the bigger the gun the more fuss.

Also seeing how your infantry scatter and which way they look is also informative. Finger pointing has also been known to be used as a directional aid. Borg spotting can be very silly particularly relaying information back from behind enemy lines from snipers. But to believe that on the battlefield anything but direct radio contact is a mandatory requirement is to throw the baby out with the bath water.

I could also argue that there are compensating "features" in the game such as real soldiers using sound location [Mk1 Ear].

In any event any game can be deconstructed by its apparent faults but the overall effect is what matters. I find chess unrealistic but it certainly seems quite popular so as a game it has something going for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vark,

Good points indeed regarding your previous post.

In regards to your first half post; A couple other players of mine have tried to work on a way to have this sort of HQ to Objective route. We only wished CM had HQ to Objective super imposed lines on the battlefield ( kinda like firing arcs, and with hot keys to turn on and off ) to help us. As it turns out, when playing Company size engagements this really didnt come into play much anyways. In general, having proper PHQ setup zones will determine per-se your HQ to Ojective route. Basically by the time a Platoon decided to dissengage from an area then move across the battlefield to help or reinforce another area, the game would be over.

However, we are still attmepting to see if another solution would work better.

In regards to your second post; We have been experimenting on a couple of ideas to help eleviate this problem to a certain degree.

First - A player can only use the target order if enemy infantry are 250 meters away and in woods, 500 meters away if in open, double that range for field pieces, double that again for vehicles. Unfortunately, half the time the computer tends to fire regarless of range during the turn.

Second - Use mandatory firing arcs for all direct fire weapons, Orange firing arc would be 500 meters max.

We are still play testing these ideas out, there are some things that needs work on before we are atleast satified to a larger degree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not discrediting tank crews nor CM, I've had many an hour (actually hundreds of hours battling) but the analogy to chess is somewhat specious. Chess does not claim to be realistic, CM in their literature stressed the realism and non-gamey nature of their product. I'm not knocking CM, they produced a ground breaking simulation, period, but CM2 (the original subject of the thread) will take that simulation towards greater realism and CM gamers will have to adapt, and it is those adaptations I am trying to predict, with the help of other forum members.

As for the combined arms versus PAK guns debate a few observations

A good crew would damp the ground, if possible, to reduce the firing signature, but if the terrain is dusty then return fire by the tanks would seriously reduce visibility.

Yes the mark I eyeball/ear is a potent combination but the first can be blocked by the mildest of obscurants and the second is ok if ambient noise is low, firing a large calibre gun would seriously degrade/damage any infantry nearby.

I have had the fortune/misfortune to have been inside some WWII tanks and the thing you realise straight away is when buttoned down your situational awareness is poor. There is a good thread on the Miniatures Page about tanks and one ex-tanker said the most valuable person in his crew was his driver as a good driver could visualise the terrain and didn't need constant directions from the TC.

I'd have thought that most infantry after being engaged by an HMG would be loathe to start drawing attention to themselves by pointing out targets to accompanying armour. Certainly the post-battle debriefs present a picture of pure confusion, as infantry try to avoid being run down by erratically moving tanks, and the tanks contiuously firing MG's in suppressive fire (again poorly handled by the CM engine) against potential firing positions.

So yes, after the initial contact the infantry/tanks could use tracer or the clock system to mutually register targets but in a CM ambush the speed and coordination of the return fire is overwheming. I would like to know the survival rate of AT crews, but there are countless reports, from all major combatants, about their relative invisibility, even after firing. That is if you discount the super Wittman stories, or most German stories relating to their tank 'aces'.

Do infantry gain cover from hiding behind tanks in SF?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just hope CMx2 is no TOW or CMSF in regards to this:

I would not like to see individual men in a squad shown, and prefer what CM has to offer of 3 men representing a squad on the battlefield, and a window showing how many men in that squad.

In CMx2, I would rather see a combination of Fire-points and a 1 to 1 fire/track each bullet would be interesting to resolve combat. Keep in mind, however, a 1 to 1 bullet tracking would have to be coupled with suppressed, pinned, and shaken moral status. I remember Jason C bringing up a good point as to why just a 1 to 1 bullet tracking idea alone is not such a good idea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why have a FP rating when you've got the actual bullets calculated? What would that actually add. It's like having a car with a horse tethered in front.

I think we'll see 'Hide' in the face of enemy fire fall out of fire as players can saturate the area where targets were last seen with rounds that won't be artificially gimped like the FP rating was. They rounds be just as deadly as aimed fire when they plough up the targeted area.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There does seem to be a strange reluctance to credit tank crews the ability to use the Mk1 eyeball as a method for spotting. When an ATG fires there is noise and dust generated - the bigger the gun the more fuss.

Also seeing how your infantry scatter and which way they look is also informative. Finger pointing has also been known to be used as a directional aid.

I could also argue that there are compensating "features" in the game such as real soldiers using sound location [Mk1 Ear].

I know this is, in effect, anecdotal evidence, but I have read many quotes from tank crewmen who said they could hear very little (if anything at all) outside their tank, such was the noise from the engine, the running gear, the tracks, enemy fire hitting the armor, etc.

In a video I saw on YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9FpEXKJRRwQ&feature=related), Otto Carius said: "I had to have my head outside of the turret, so that I could oversee everything. If there was an anti-tank gun firing, you could then sense what was going on. If the hatch was closed, then you only had a limited view."

A good [AT] crew would damp the ground, if possible, to reduce the firing signature, but if the terrain is dusty then return fire by the tanks would seriously reduce visibility.

Yes the mark I eyeball/ear is a potent combination but the first can be blocked by the mildest of obscurants and the second is ok if ambient noise is low, firing a large calibre gun would seriously degrade/damage any infantry nearby.

I have had the fortune/misfortune to have been inside some WWII tanks and the thing you realise straight away is when buttoned down your situational awareness is poor.

I'd have thought that most infantry after being engaged by an HMG would be loathe to start drawing attention to themselves by pointing out targets to accompanying armour. Certainly the post-battle debriefs present a picture of pure confusion, as infantry try to avoid being run down by erratically moving tanks, and the tanks contiuously firing MG's in suppressive fire (again poorly handled by the CM engine) against potential firing positions.

I would like to know the survival rate of AT crews, but there are countless reports, from all major combatants, about their relative invisibility, even after firing. That is if you discount the super Wittman stories, or most German stories relating to their tank 'aces'.

According to Soviet Rifleman: 1941-1945 by Gordon Rottman (Osprey Publishing), standard practice among Red Army machine-gunners was to urinate on the ground from which dust would otherwise be kicked up when the MG fired.

Just because Michael Wittmann, Otto Carius, et al, survived long enough to become as experienced as they were doesn't preclude the possibility that oftentimes they found enemy AT guns bafflingly un-spot-able. Several German accounts I have read stated that Russian AT guns were virtually impossible to spot until after they had fired.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vark- sorry for disturbing the thread but I suppose I tend to the view that if a game plays well enough extra levels of realism rarely improve the gaming experience. CM has been fortunate to evolve to CMAK.

CMSF from what I have been told by my friends was unfortunately tending towards the unplayable when launched - but was amusing for those who had not parted with the money and could hear the gory AI movement stories. I understand it is improving.

For CM2 I live in dread that the play area will be reduced. I know plenty of people play on maps effectively with no flanks to worry about [highly artificial] whereas I play on the biggest possible maps - the extra terrain may be irrelevant for flags but it does make the players more honest than skulking along the map edge.

The personal fitted laser for each infantry squad would be the first thing I would adjust. Infantry squads should have their effective range limits obviously but knowing to the metre how far another unit is over 2000 m is bogus. There should be a fudge factor.

This would be particulaly useful in night and poor visibility as the current system allows complete gamesmanship.

Borg spotting is flawed. Perhaps this could be solved for units out of touch of an HQ by the concept that infantry would be concentrating on their immediate vicinity - however when settled into a position - not under fire -then there spotting radius increases by x metres per minute. If not in contact with a radio equipped unit the spotting radius remains limited or possibly opaque and they can "see" enemy icons misplaced by metres [variance increased by range].

If I were to generalise[!] I think the lethality of weapons dictates map size and unit size. By my reckoning Napoleonics are played at a much higher unit level because for the player it is more fun. Playing with a company of infantry, some artillery, and a troop of horse would be very limiting in the long term replayability stakes. Les Grognards aims for Corp movement - probably for good reason. : )

CM1 units are far less lethal than CMSF units. In my mind the maps for CMSF should be very much larger but then if BF were commissioned to make a small unit trainer then thye are getting into the right scale. Whether the realisticish trainer equals good gaming experience depends on the players favoured style.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dietrich - I had always assumed that ATG's would for all practical purposes be unspottable until they started firing or were overrun by infantry. I am familiar with Carius's writing and examples of ATG's at work. ATG's were lethal. They also got killed. This was generally a function of how good an ATG was at killing and the terrain they were operating in. The British 2pdr was a very good ATG in the early war however with better German tanks they took big losses for little reward. In game terms picking the wrong period can make ATG's look very weak and useless.

If I phrase it as "In game terms has CM1 got the balance right between tanks and ATG's" I would say yes. I tend to use ATG's a lot in CMAK. However you have to bear in mind I play games where I expect to have 6 ATG's and flanks. A platoon of tanks and some units to move the ATG and you have a combined arms force where the loss of a unit or two is not game over.

If I play small games where I have two ATG's and the board is relatively small then I would die pretty quickly against tanks generally. I would probably be firing head-on and he has probably guessed where the ATG;s are and got mortars and HMG's firing or ready to fire.

People expect too much of the game engine when they play such small actions. The fact that Tiger Valley is the most popular downloaded and appreciated game is because it is done on the correct scale. That is apart from the great map and balance : ).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey DT, the more the merrier. I agree about your ideas of 'extra realism' and how pursuing the holy grail will result in the exact opposite. The three man representation v's 1 to 1 depiction of squads has been debated before but I do not play SF so do not know how it plays out. Can squads change frontage or separate into independent fire teams?

I agree completely with the 'range finder' it allows gamey exploitation of the game system, a prepared defence would have range cards making their fire all that more effective than the attacker. I really do not know why the CM engine has borg spotting but it is my pet hate.

Spoiler alert************Spoiler alert*************Spoiler alert*****************

I remember playing "The Balka" and after executing a flanking attack set out to hunt down the armour but was amazed when the buttoned down tanks stopped, traversed their turrets to the rear, as soon as my SPG's were in visibility range and picked off my stalking Marders. Eugh, left a bad taste in the mouth, good tactics penalised by a crappy mechanism, still if this was the least worst alternative then so be it.

If CM2 follows SF then terrain tiles will be far more detailed and if CM2 is based on the Normandy battles then visibility should be greatly reduced for most scenarios, Cobra breakout notwithstanding. I'd just like a game that gives the player a closer approximation to the opportunities and threats commanders faced with their TO&E's and troops.

Talking of that has anyone else played the free downloadable "Firefight"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Following the discussion about defending against vastly out numbered forces I have a question aimed at people who play Shock Force as well as CM1. What gamey tactics will not work when playing CM2? . . . Which real world tactics will be viable in CM2 and which gamey ones die a horrid death?

I do not play SF

CMSF from what I have been told by my friends . . .

Apparently some of those contributing to this thread have not played CM:SF, so the resultant discussion is apt to become inordinately speculative.

One gamey tactic from CMx1 that will die a horrid death is using crews of knocked-out vehicles as disposable recon units. Indeed, now that borg spotting is not an issue (in CM:SF), the smaller or less powerful the unit or group of units, the more dangerous using them for recon will be. Platoon-strength recon-in-force with Abrams overwatch! Ooo-rah! =P

Can squads change frontage or separate into independent fire teams?

I have played the CM:SF demo (the full version, along with the Marines module, is on its way in the mail =D). Squads cannot change frontage, as far as I know, but in the case of full-size infantry units, assault and anti-tank teams can detach from the main squad as needed.

My current favorite little thing about CM:SF (now that I've figured out how to do it) is getting my troops more ammo and grenades in the middle of a scenario. Tactical resupply! I wish such was possible in CMx1; it's always a bummer when a squad makes a name for itself by staving off an entire platoon of enemy troops but then is useless for the rest of the scenario because it has "low ammo". (Come to think of this, I wonder if the not-really-using-all-one's-ammo thing is included in CM:SF like it was simulated in CMx1?)

has anyone else played the free downloadable "Firefight"?

I've downloaded and played the free demo version of Firefight. I took note of the website's comparison of the game to Close Combat (which I have not played but have heard much about). The 2D Fieseler-Storch's-eye view was for me quite a change from CMx1, but the mechanics of the game and how it (the one scenario playable in the demo version) played out earned my respect. Also, I would have been all too tempted to think "Why can't I do such and such?", etc., had I not read a review of the game on its website which pointed out the wisdom in what the game has left out as well as in what it has included. What I found most interesting about it (to the extent that the one scenario I played is representative of the game) is that, whereas in CMx1 you in effect play not only as the overall commander of your forces but as the leader of each and every unit, in Firefight you play strictly as the on-map commander (i.e., the captain); so unlike in CMx1, you can't issue orders to units which are 'out of command' -- if, say, a rifle squad is not close enough to issue orders to (by whatever means), they will act on their own, and you must bring your command (HQ) unit (closer) to the unit to which you want to give orders. This enforcement of command and control prevented me from trying to pull off tactics which are gamey in a game and would be dangerous or at least irresponsible in real life, such as sending a single squad in a wide flanking maneuver around an entire village. (Sure, a platoon commander could order one of his squads to go all the way around the village to hit the enemy from behind, but then that squad would be where the rest of the platoon couldn't support them, and they might get hit in their own flank on the way there.)

Have you played it, Vark? If so, what do you think of it?

But I digress . . .

Wait a minute . . . "defending against vastly out numbered forces"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dietrich, I considered SF but decided against it for a number of reasons ranging from; old computer (getting a new one for the house Christmas present, cough, cough) not interested in the scenario devised and after reading the comments it took a long time to get it to where it should have been on release. I do read the SF forum to check progress and am interested in the proposed expansion set in Europe. As I said before I see SF as an indicator only for CM2, but from the forums the tactical flexibility and AI is much improved and BF have finally driven a computerised stake (chip?) through the heart of the abominable Borg spotting. Though when I first came to this forum I used to read comments and think "what the hell is Borg spotting?"

I don't mind speculation as long as it is reasonably informed and so far a big thanks to all contributors as we have had a good, and even tempered debate/discussion. Talking of sections (squads to you) do you have doctrinal differences represented in SF and if so how does it affect playing each side. I'd like CM2 to represent the central role the German's LMG's played in manoevre, they led the section followed by the commander whose job was to position the LMG to support any offensive action. I would also like to see limited move options for different nationalities, why can Russians advance, they used section rushes, not deliberate skirmishing tactics. Perhaps veterans used an adhoc arrangement but I have read nothing that suggests they were trained to use a combination of fire and movement as a section. If anyone has an answer please let me know, I guess if you do try to replicate the short rushes you take a moral hit, again why as modern British troops are trained, on contact, to double forward to available cover, as long as it is nearby. Playing Russians in CM is like playing slightly not so good Germans which I do not think reflected the situation on the Eastern front.

In game ammo resupply sounds promising, do vehicles, in SF, have the option to increase ammo loads, at an increased risk of brewing up?

Yes, I have played firefight and yes I was a little intrigued, the depiction of height was far superior to the brutal method in Steel Panthers and the emphasis on C3 allowed HQ's to do what HQ's do, act as a communications conduit, not a super combat unit. If units are out of command they should follow their last command orders and, unless exceptional, wait till new orders are received. I played one game, so far, when I got back from work (my best excuse) and so watched as my men turn into tombstones, all to quickly!! I found the infantry better represented than AFV's as a tank v's PAK duel ended up in a race to see which crew could inflict mortal damage on their opponents hill and was ended by a non scripted suicidal charge, by the tank, which KO'd the PAK. Still the real time element added real tension.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One gamey tactic from CMx1 that will die a horrid death is using crews of knocked-out vehicles as disposable recon units.

Dietrich - Crew's for spotting in CM1? Crewmen can be very expensive. As I understand it they cost the proportion of the dead vehicles cost - that is a five man crewed Tiger knocked out costing 250 points would be 250 points if they all die. If two escape and are later shot that is an extra 100 points even more points if captured. I like people who let me capture crews : )

I have to say I have never proved it, and I am not sure if it applies in CMBB - I think it does. Certainly sniping a Tiger commander is very points effective. : )

My impression has always been that CM1 was originally designed to be very good with tanks and that infantry etc was a supporting cast. Certainly playing in minute turns on LAN it plays exceedingly well on that basis.

Given the time span of CM1 games the concept of replenishment of ammo does not really hold water. However scavenging ammo from fallen friends might be thought possible if there were 5 minutes or so free of enemy fire.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm playing SF at the moment :D

The squads in SF can be split to give you different fire teams - Assault, AT, LMG teams. Very handy for set piece attacks on positions :)

I suspect the LMG section in a rifle squad at CMWW2 might be able to be split off, giving the close combat part of the squad covering fire as they assault.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...