CM:N strategy , campaigns

[scottie]

Just read over the CM:N (x2) sticky post, cant see anything about tactical/strategic maps. I purchased the first version CM:SF but struggled to enjoy it so played it very little. Have any of the later CMx2 product addressed this ? When i say tactical maps, i'm referring to the the CMC (CM campaigns) type product where you can move mutiple task forces around etc...

Thanks for any info, at last excited by a CMx2 release !

Scott

[born2lose]

Just read over the CM:N (x2) sticky post, cant see anything about tactical/strategic maps. I purchased the first version CM:SF but struggled to enjoy it so played it very little. Have any of the later CMx2 product addressed this ? When i say tactical maps, i'm referring to the the CMC (CM campaigns) type product where you can move mutiple task forces around etc...

Thanks for any info, at last excited by a CMx2 release !

Scott

Scott

CM:N will be the same as CMSF just based on WWII in Europe after Normandy landings, there has never been any suggestion it would have anything that CMC was gonna have before it was shut down, Steve has always said that that sort of strat layer was not worth the investment at present.

[scottie]

ok, cheers for reply. Like i said, i dont know much about CM:SF , is there ANY sort of ongoing rolling strategic / operational layer where units carry experiece forward or is it all based on 1 off missions ?

[phil stanbridge]

Carrying experience forward in one battle to the next is not exactly realistic in my opinion anyway. Have you tried the campaigns at all in SF? They are semi dynamic (read less linear) in nature and can vary depending on which route you choose and how well you play. It's still nothing along the lines of what CMC intended, but it's a step in the right direction.

[scottie]

Have you tried the campaigns at all in SF?.

Cant remember getting that far with it to be honest, was a bit disappoint with it after BO, BB, AK. I am sure its come a long way since.

Carrying experience forward in one battle to the next is not exactly realistic in my opinion anyway.

Completely agree actually , was thinking more of promotions and awards i guess and keeping the units with same soldier names (editable ideally). Really adds to the game IMO , makes me try and save more lifes.

[Michael Emrys]

...was thinking more of promotions and awards i guess...

If we are talking about WW II, it often took weeks or even months for a soldier to receive a promotion or—especially—an award for some outstanding service. Beyond the time scale of a CM campaign. Soldiers were expected to perform well and it took something really remarkable to get a speedy response. More likely he would get a good chewing out if his superior thought he wasn't performing up to snuff. You gonna include those too?

Michael

[scottie]

If we are talking about WW II, it often took weeks or even months for a soldier to receive a promotion or—especially—an award for some outstanding service.

Yip, another going point , im rapidly running out of legs to stand on here

Could have acting CO based on fatalities .... point taken though. Having played TOW recently i did like the features it offered but completly understand it unrealtistc within the time scales involved.

I guess operations i.e mission followed by mission and units carrying on (with casualties) was the primary need.

[phil stanbridge]

I miss the statistics of old in CMBO/CMBB and CMAK with the kill count and who got what. I really miss that a lot actually. I found it quite helpful in a gamey type of way.

But to Scottie, SF is leaps and bounds above that. You really need to give it another go. It took me the best part of 3 years to get into it and now I wouldn't go back to the other games. Just waiting on NATO and then the biggie, Normandy to keep me quiet for a while. It does take quite a bit of practice to get it right, but when it falls into place, you realise it's a better game. I am still trying to get my mate in SF, but if it took me 3 years. Well, you get my point.

Theatre of War is a good laugh when you fancy ten minutes away from SF I've got 2 and 3 sitting here. Some of TOWs little features are quite nice, but they definitely do not fit in the scope of these games.

[Michael Emrys]

...understand it unrealtistc within the time scales involved.

I think possibly the most exaggerated example of that was in the old flight sim F/A-18 Hornet, where you could go from ensign to captain (in the US Navy the equivalent of a full colonel) by completing only five successful missions. It was laughable.

Michael

[Erwin]

There are so many abstractions etc in CMSF simply to enable it to run on commercial computers.

As a game, it would be great to enable promotions of your core units. Since the troops are all named one could look at a report of all troops and what they did that was exceptional (saving WIA lives; killing a lot of enemies etc) so one could award promos or medals (like in the Silent Hunter sub series).

[c3k]

Bah! The military promotion system is keyed into parameters FAR beyond the level of this game. For the enlisted, they need to pass specific tests (and of course they have limited windows in which to take these tests), there is time in grade, performance reports, etc. "Oh, you stood watch and fired your weapon? Isn't that what you're _supposed_ to do? More importantly, when was the last time you participated in unit's United Way drive?"

Promotions would be a gamey gimmick. As would be medals.

Awards are based on several criteria, not least of which is the rank of the individual. (FWIW, a good buddy was in basic training up at Ft. Benning with the 82nd when Panama kicked off. A few days later the platoon sergeant had everyone toss their names into a helmet: the names he pulled out got some sort of medal. The Army had decreed that every unit would get a certain number of medals, regardless of participation. It made it simpler.) In addition to rank, witnesses are important. Is the individual a "good" soldier or is he a "headache"?

The U.S. military also seems biased to give medals, not based on mission accomplishment, but rather based on showing humanitarian commitment to your buddy. "Killed a platoon of baddies? Good for you! Extra chow." "Run into a street under intermittent, un-aimed, single shot fire to drag a buddy who twisted his ankle back under cover? What a hero!" (Very sarcastic, and I am writing to illustrate a bias, NOT to attack those who have been under fire and been awarded for their bravery.) Regardless of the merit of either way to give awards, what does that have to do with this game?

Most awards take MONTHS to wend their way through the system. And woe betide the individual whose unit CO thought his particular brand of bravery deserved a silver star: the HQ staff exists to sculpt ALL the awards properly. Perhaps that private's silver star would make the major's bronze star a bit lackluster. Tweak the awards as necessary.

Anyone who thinks promotions and awards in a game have ANYTHING to do with reality needs to serve in the military for several years.

Now, kill stats? Bring 'em! German style close-assault badges? Why don't we have them already? Did I mention kill stats?

Regards,

Ken

[Erwin]

It's the dichotomy between CMSF being a GAME or a TRAINING SIMULATION.

The mil. doesn't think it has the "granularity" to be a training sim, so in my book that makes it a fun game - more realistic than most, but still a game.

So, why not give people the toys/features they enjoy, and that will probably widen the market for the game?

[Michael Emrys]

So, why not give people the toys/features they enjoy, and that will probably widen the market for the game?

Mostly I would tend to agree with you. But CM has always had a tone to it. The promotions and awards gimmick would not be consistent with that tone.

Look at it this way: It is a work of art and what is being suggested here is the equivalent of drawing a mustache on the Mona Lisa.

Or look at it this way: There is a lot of talk about immersion in these parts and generally that is held to be worth respecting. Promotions and awards, being so totally alien to what is being simulated here, would seriously compromise and erode the sense of reality.

Give the market those toys in some other game. There seem to be plenty around.

Michael

[vincere]

I don't see experience going up or down a level gamey.

Let's take CMN with modules. I think in th scope of a campaign it is reasonable that a squad could and would go from green to veteren.

[Field Marshal Blücher]

I don't see experience going up or down a level gamey.

Let's take CMN with modules. I think in th scope of a campaign it is reasonable that a squad could and would go from green to veteren.

I heard somewhere that you can do that. I've never tried, but I might conduct a quick test this afternoon, time permitting.

[c3k]

Oh, stop flaunting your betaness! The rest of us must wait for our CM:N goodness...

Ken

[Field Marshal Blücher]

Well, I did the test with CMSF 1.21 . . . and I didn't get it to work; their experience didn't go up. Maybe I just did it wrong and someone else should take a look at it, I just threw the test together in 5 mins.

[YankeeDog]

I don't see experience going up or down a level gamey.

Let's take CMN with modules. I think in th scope of a campaign it is reasonable that a squad could and would go from green to veteren.

I'm not sure I can find the study right now, but research by the U.S. Army based on WWII experience suggested that the combat effectiveness of soldiers actually went down as they were exposed to combat over the short to intermediate term, to the point where even well-trained troops were severely degraded after just a few weeks on the front line. The only cure for this combat fatigue was a rotation off of the front lines, to rest and recover.

So, given that your typical CM campaign represents just a few weeks of action, arguably troop quality should go down over the course of a CM campaign as combat fatigue sets in, not up.

Hypothetically, if the game was able to simulate the changes in experience and quality of the same unit over two separate campaigns (say the famous "Band of Brothers" first in Normandy, and then later in Market Garden), then "leveling up" the experience of units based on past combat experience would be more justifiable (and indeed, probably necessary for a realistic simulation).

[hcrof]

Luckily I have a document on just that on my computer. Let me quote the relevant parts:

The Green Soldier During the first time in battle for soldiers, their combat performance is usually lower than it was in precombat training. The novice soldiers are also at relatively high risk of being killed or wounded. This is partly because they have not yet learned to identify and respond automatically to the true dangers (such as the specific sounds of incoming artillery or mortar rounds). Under extreme stress, they may experience difficulty with focusing their attention and remembering what they were taught in training. Their ineffectiveness may also be caused by fear induced fatigue. First-battle soldiers are at high risk of becoming battle fatigue casualties. Soldiers in their first time under fire are likely to experience high anxiety (the stages of alarm). Poor showing on first exposure to real battle can be reduced by providing tough, realistic training (especially battle drills under high stress), but it cannot be totally prevented.

The Experienced Veteran. If the soldier does not become a casualty in the first battle, his combat skills will improve quickly over the next few days. His skills continue to improve gradually over the next weeks until he is as good as he can get. An experienced soldier gains confidence in his skill, comrades, and leaders. For him, the stage of alarm is mostly in anticipation. He responds selectively and automatically to the truly dangerous sounds and cues of the battlefield. When the action starts, he immediately achieves the stage of resistance and is remarkably calm as he focuses on his job. However, the veteran is likely to have a considerable rebound of arousal and anxiety when the fight is over. Not all veteran soldiers ever achieve the state of really low fear in action. Some drop to mid levels, yet still perform their duties effectively.

The Overstressed Veteran. If the unit suffers many casualties, however, and the chance of surviving a long war seems poor, the experienced soldier's combat performance begins to decline. It can occur after 14 to 21 days of cumulative combat or even after only a few days of extremely heavy losses. The overstressed veteran becomes more careful, loses initiative, and may be indecisive when he needs to act quickly. The anxiety pattern of an overstressed soldier is doubting his chances of survival -- there were too many close calls in the last battle; too many of his friends were killed (slowly over time or quickly). Under such stress, he feels his own skills are slipping, and it is just a matter of time before he, too, will surely be killed or maimed. Unless he is given the opportunity and help to reduce arousal level and regain some hope, he will soon fail.

No source unfortunately. I just pulled it off the internet in a hurry a few years ago. If anyone wants the full document PM me

[Battlefront.com]

The topic that will never die

This has been discussed to death over the past 10 years. The reasons why we do not include a completely silly, unrealistic campaign structure have been repeated many, many times. And the amount of fights we've seen between the pro-gamey and anti-gamey campaign factions proves that no matter which one we go with we'll have a solution that nobody likes. Not even the people who asked for it

Do a search on "Campaign" here and be overwhelmed by the responses. Then recover your courage and look for the monster threads and start in there.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Somewhere Charles has the book that chart is in. The book is a dedicated study about the psychological effects of combat on soldiers. Never read the whole thing as I only borrowed it from him eons ago. But yes, the "1000 yard stare" makes a veteran as useful as a block of wood. Or less useful, depending on if you need to build a latrine or not

Steve

[vincere]

I'm not sure I can find the study right now, but research by the U.S. Army based on WWII experience suggested that the combat effectiveness of soldiers actually went down as they were exposed to combat over the short to intermediate term, to the point where even well-trained troops were severely degraded after just a few weeks on the front line. The only cure for this combat fatigue was a rotation off of the front lines, to rest and recover.

So, given that your typical CM campaign represents just a few weeks of action, arguably troop quality should go down over the course of a CM campaign as combat fatigue sets in, not up.

Hypothetically, if the game was able to simulate the changes in experience and quality of the same unit over two separate campaigns (say the famous "Band of Brothers" first in Normandy, and then later in Market Garden), then "leveling up" the experience of units based on past combat experience would be more justifiable (and indeed, probably necessary for a realistic simulation).

Woa, you open a big can of worm there. Yes, there's quite a bit of evidence to suggest the same. However, we would have to define "Combat Effectivenss." Some of what I've come across is that veteren units can be less go getting, which higher commanders perceived as less effective. However, while being slower in the attack they took less casualties.

On balance I think the traditional view holds. Experienced troops perform better than green. Though there are many examples of nuances that can go with that.

[JonS]

Look at it this way: It is a work of art and what is being suggested here is the equivalent of drawing a mustache on the Mona Lisa.

Which is still art. Apparently.

[JonS]

I'm not sure I can find the study right now, but research by the U.S. Army based on WWII experience suggested that the combat effectiveness of soldiers actually went down as they were exposed to combat over the short to intermediate term, to the point where even well-trained troops were severely degraded after just a few weeks on the front line. The only cure for this combat fatigue was a rotation off of the front lines, to rest and recover.

Grossman ("On Killing") uses this chart:

So, given that your typical CM campaign represents just a few weeks of action, arguably troop quality should go down over the course of a CM campaign as combat fatigue sets in, not up.

Based on the chart, and assuming fairly continuous combat, it is reasonable that soldiers that start off green would improve over the course of a 2-3 week campaign. Similarly, soldiers that start off as veterans would decline in effectiveness ... which is a development not many would welcome, I posit.

Hypothetically, if the game was able to simulate the changes in experience and quality of the same unit over two separate campaigns (say the famous "Band of Brothers" first in Normandy, and then later in Market Garden), then "leveling up" the experience of units based on past combat experience would be more justifiable (and indeed, probably necessary for a realistic simulation).

The way I've interpreted this apparent paradox for myself this is that 'units' generally get better, even if the individual men within the unit are going up, then down, then dying, because the unit (be it a company, battalion, and especially higher) builds up a body of corporate knowledge of 'how to do this battle stuff.' This is especially so amongst in the staff and support functions whose members don't face the same stresses - or casualties - as frontline riflemen, and therefore don't burn out in quite the same way or at nearly the same rate. That is; the planning, logistics, selection of terrain, integration with other arms, effectiveness of firesupport, use of intelligence, and so on, all gets much much better, even though the general effectiveness of the riflemen overall stays pretty much the same.

Jon

[vincere]

The way I've interpreted this apparent paradox for myself this is that 'units' generally get better, even if the individual men within the unit are going up, then down, then dying, because the unit (be it a company, battalion, and especially higher) builds up a body of corporate knowledge of 'how to do this battle stuff.' This is especially so amongst in the staff and support functions whose members don't face the same stresses - or casualties - as frontline riflemen, and therefore don't burn out in quite the same way or at nearly the same rate. That is; the planning, logistics, selection of terrain, integration with other arms, effectiveness of firesupport, use of intelligence, and so on, all gets much much better, even though the general effectiveness of the riflemen overall stays pretty much the same.

Jon

Considering the adaptions and learning that took place this seems very reasonable. I think the same could be said of lower teeth arms formations, squads and platoons.