Scale of combat

[Rustman]

First, I'd like to say that this game is awesome, and for the most part, pretty accurate....

I guess the only thing that really raises my eyebrow about it, and I guess it is probably because of software/hardware limitations, is that troop density doesn't change when moving from rural to urban environments. I just finished the Airfield/Special Forces HQ mission, and I had to laugh a little when I cleared the entire Airbase HQ with a single squad. Real world urban combat is incredibly incredibly dense. If I remember right the Airbase HQ is 6 stories tall? Forget the other 2 objectives in that mission; in a real world conventional warfare mindset, that one building would have been, at a minimum, a company mission in of itself. To breach, clear, cordon, and secure the urban area around the Airbase HQ would have easily needed a full infantry battalion.

The mission in it's entirety that was given to a single Stryker company would have rightly been a Brigade level operation.

[ChrisND]

In principle, I very much agree with you. Units in the game are often given objectives several times too large for them.

Game play wise however, I think it is good as is. With 1:1 there is a limit on how many units the average player/computer wants to handle, and being charged with taking 1-2 buildings for a whole mission would get pretty boring.

[Rustman]

Yea, I kinda figured it was something along those lines. I'm not knockin it too much..it's fun as hell regardless...and I understand there are trade offs. I mean, at that density, an urban combat scenario will be won or lost on tactics at a near micro-terrain level...down to individual meters or less. If that level of precision could be accurately modelled, I don't think it would get boring, even with just one building...but that would take a complete revamp of the engine and yadda yadda yadda which is not something that either I, nor particularly the maker, would want to do...and even if it was done, going the other direction when you do talk about a battalion or larger urban scenario, the amount of micromanaging needed would be sooooo time consuming. You could spend hours going through squad by squad analyzing, adjusting, planning, etc...before you could get one 60 second turn off.

It's great as is...I just making comment that I thought it was kinda funny. My one squad had that entire building locked down in about 10 minutes.

"Hellz yea...I got a squad of Rambos"

[MikeyD]

Scenario designers find themselves battling the expectations game.

- You design a real world-size building complex and put Red defenders in it, then you get complaints about creating an unplayable deathrap.

- You create a map with 400m of flat open ground to cover and you get complaints about the player being unable to cover 400m of open ground.

- You design a scenario where enemy mgs are outranging your ground troops' carbines so you get complaints about not being able to fire on the distant enemy.

- You supply sufficient artillery to get the job done and get complaints about gamey overkill.

-You limit artilllery due to the 'danger close' map dimensions and you're accused of hobbling your forces unnecessarily.

Without even realizing it, scenario designers are constantly being nudged towards these unspoken scenario parameters that most players expect to find. That open stretch of ground always has that convenient depression to sneak your men up, or a convenient stone wall to hide behind. That oncoming enemy tank will always find anti-tank asets waiting to stop him. The enemy will never be ten times more numerous. The scenario objective will be accessible to armor. If you stray outside a certain boundary you're accused of creating 'unplayable' scenarios.

The nice thing about CMSF is you could build a real-world size multi-unit building complex then dedicate a full Company the max allotted time in order to clear it. Such a scenario would fall well outside of 'expectations' but it could very likely be made to work.

[Rustman]

Oh absolutely...simulation style games are always going to be stuck trying to find that balance between what is realistic and what people actually want to play. It is pretty cool that the engine could, in theory, be able to run a scenario like that. I did not know that before. I guess it all comes down to what kind of overall experience someone is looking to create. A person making a scenario for their buddies to have fun with on the internet is going to approach it differently than a hardcore sim guy who is going to be slightly different from someone looking to create a scenario to use as a training aid at like a National Guard Drill or something. I just got it a day or two ago, so I'm still learning the intricacies of the software, but the more I find out about it the more impressed I am with the fliexibility it has.

[dan/california]

The scenario Mikey is talking about is called the "battle of pooh". Every time I play it I want to curl up in a ball and whimper for a pair of B52s because its so hard. Great fun though, really.

[Apocalypse 31]

That one building would have been, at a minimum, a company mission in of itself. To breach, clear, cordon, and secure the urban area around the Airbase HQ would have easily needed a full infantry battalion.

Negative.

Economy of Force.

My platoon, in Baghdad, had cleared 8 story buildings by itself, and much larger area's. Six stories isnt much. We had to clear these buildings ( http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/cd/High_residential_rising_buildings_in_Haifa_street.jpg ) on Haifa Street. THAT was a Troop level operation.

But six stories isnt bad. Thats definitely a platoon level-op. It just takes a while.

BTW. Thats my favorite mission. I play it over and over.

[ChrisND]

Negative.

Economy of Force.

My platoon, in Baghdad, had cleared 8 story buildings by itself, and much larger area's. Six stories isnt much. We had to clear these buildings ( http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/cd/High_residential_rising_buildings_in_Haifa_street.jpg ) on Haifa Street. THAT was a Troop level operation.

Yes, but this is also a building occupied by the better part of a Syrian Special Forces company.

[Rustman]

For a knock and search maybe....yea, my platoon searched entire neighborhoods too when we had all day to do it and enemy contact was minimal...but the scenario being played is during the initial invasion of the country and enemy contact is not only certian, but it is with elite members of the enemy force. As an example, the initial push into Fallujah in 2004 was with 6 battalions, not counting the cordon force or CSS...and Fallujah isn't that big...around 9 or 10 square kilometers. I could map the entire city in CMSF and still have some room to spare....I'd be pushing the limits of what it can handle, but I could do it...I can't even imagine what 6 battalions in game would look like, but I think it would be insane.

[akd]

Rustman,

Thanks for joining us here! This is one of the reasons I would like to see the time limit in the editor removed or raised significantly. The complaint that any scenario longer than 2 hours would not be "fun" is in my opinion narrow-minded. I lean towards allowing much more creativity within the editor and seeing what people come up with.

[Apocalypse 31]

Yes, but this is also a building occupied by the better part of a Syrian Special Forces company.

Even easier!

Just drop a few Mk.84's on it and have a some Privates scrounge through the rubble for body parts.

No commander in his right mind would even send his Soldiers into that.

In all seriousness though, yeah you guys are right.

[rune]

Take it from someone who knows. It isn't pretty...I got 2-3 fps and I have a screaming system. of course, I had a little bit more on the Syrian Side, a Division of tanks [T-72s].

As the author of above named scenario, I wanted it to be challenging, but not a cakewalk. I went with the company with some air support and had it tested for balance. it seemed about right, altho there was some moaning and groaning it was too hard at first. I'll accept that.

I also made an iraq/iran war scenario which was mostly infantry. Big map based on the actual; ground fought over. It ran too slow under an old build, however maybe I'll try again under 1.20. Ton's of infantry in this one, few tanks.

Rune

[dan/california]

I usually save all of my 120mm mortars for the above mentioned special forces headquarters, its not as good a proper visit from the air-force, but its good enough.

Lt Mike, I assume these are privates who have been very bad?

[MikeyD]

There are tactical situations that the game currently can't do or can only do in an abstracted form. The complexities of room-to-room searches for instance, or full battalions assaulting on a broad front. But there are other situation that the game would be perfectly capable of recreating but fall outside of the player's reasonable expectations.

Think of a scenario as free-form "movie". There's the backstory, the characters, the plot, the action, the villan(s), the 3rd act twist, and the conclusion. That's what's expected. Scenarios lacking any of those features would seem 'odd'. For example, you could make a prefectly valid scenario without any Red opposition at all. Just a destination with obstacles to get through, or something hidden than has to be searched for. The player wouldn't know til the very end that there was no threat, that there wasn't a booby-trap behind each door. That would be a recreation of perhaps 7/8ths of all combat patrols that take place, but would fall well outside of what's expected from the game. A proportion of the perceived 'limitations' of the game involve self-censorship on the designer's part.

[Apocalypse 31]

I usually save all of my 120mm mortars for the above mentioned special forces headquarters, its not as good a proper visit from the air-force, but its good enough.

Lt Mike, I assume these are privates who have been very bad?

AH.

Sorry guys. I was confusing the SF HQ with the first objective...I think the Airport control building.

Yeah. That SF HQ is packed full of bad guys. I just continually call Apache support on it.

[Sixxkiller]

What I am glad that isnt realistic is there are no civilians to worry about and no reporters camped on every other corner.

[Rustman]

What I am glad that isnt realistic is there are no civilians to worry about and no reporters camped on every other corner.

I'll second that..

[SD Smack]

Think of a scenario as free-form "movie"...

Hey MikeyD,

I think that is a very good synopsis of scenario design. Everyone expects a fight when they play a scenario and when they don’t get one perhaps they feel “jipped”. But good scenario designers, as you point out, can put very few enemies on the map and still create a tense atmosphere.

When I play, especially campaigns, I try to play like I am part of the Platoon. I am slow and deliberate. Perhaps this is me being too cautious but in todays environment Blue Forces can’t afford high casualties militarily and especially politically. So if I’m entering a village to capture a building or some other objective I’m always expecting the worse. If the brief says there are no tanks, I plan on tanks. Given my force composition I figure out what would hurt me the most, what is the enemy’s most dangerous course of action and then I try to find a way to counteract that. If I take casualties I always make sure that someone tends to them. I have in the past dismounted vehicle crews to provide buddy aid when the rest of the squad was assaulting the objective. In fact I remember one time a sniper had stalled my advance and after 5 or so minutes I still hadn't found him. He had taken out 3 guys already. So I drove a Bradley broadside infront of my squad. The sniper still fired away but the rounds were bouncing off the Bradley. My guys started performing buddy aid and the rest of my squads started off in another direction. Never found that damn sniper either! But that is just the way I play.

Steve