LongLeftFlank Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 Starting to think that casualties should always be an important factor in the VC, to disincent the player from savagely driving forward clearly exhausted and demoralized troops since he has nothing to lose but the game. In RL, barring some heroic action by a few (which happened), this attack would probably have run out of steam around now and been called off for fear of the exposed troops getting zeroed by German mortars (if not a counterattack). In fact, where are those dang German mortars? This is actually a positive comment -- the game engine seems to be getting the tempo about right IMHO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sand digger Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 Thanks for the explanation Elvis, providing there is some randomness in all this then it may be that your particular spooked troops are just an example of that? In other words, some troops will tough it out and some won't for no apparent reason. Although junior officer and NCO leadership often seems to be relevant as to performance under fire. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BFCElvis Posted January 21, 2011 Author Share Posted January 21, 2011 Thanks for the explanation Elvis, providing there is some randomness in all this then it may be that your particular spooked troops are just an example of that? In other words, some troops will tough it out and some won't for no apparent reason. Although junior officer and NCO leadership often seems to be relevant as to performance under fire. No, not exactly. You are able to see the condition of the morale of you men. And also the physical condtion (how many KIA/WIA, tired, rested etc...) and you are about to see if they are in C2. If you have an out of comm, broken, tired squad that has lost 50% of the men in the squad and you see them not get spooked then you are looking at a bug. There isn't (and shouldn't be) any randomness there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrisND Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 No, not exactly. You are able to see the condition of the morale of you men. And also the physical condtion (how many KIA/WIA, tired, rested etc...) and you are about to see if they are in C2. If you have an out of comm, broken, tired squad that has lost 50% of the men in the squad and you see them not get spooked then you are looking at a bug. There isn't (and shouldn't be) any randomness there. I believe there is some small variation in the men within the squad though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BFCElvis Posted January 21, 2011 Author Share Posted January 21, 2011 I believe there is some small variation in the men within the squad though. Right, individual men in a squad may not go to ground or may not surrender etc but the unit as a whole is what I was referring to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sand digger Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 No, not exactly. You are able to see the condition of the morale of you men. And also the physical condtion (how many KIA/WIA, tired, rested etc...) and you are about to see if they are in C2. If you have an out of comm, broken, tired squad that has lost 50% of the men in the squad and you see them not get spooked then you are looking at a bug. There isn't (and shouldn't be) any randomness there. There is that but what happens on a battlefield is not always number or statistic related, thats what I was getting at. Also the leadership issue, particularly for green troops this seemed often to be crucial as to their performance, particularly in adversity. I'm just hoping the game reflects all this and does not eg say, you have lost half your men therefore your performance has been downgraded to X. Which seems to be what you are saying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BFCElvis Posted January 21, 2011 Author Share Posted January 21, 2011 There is that but what happens on a battlefield is not always number or statistic related, thats what I was getting at. Also the leadership issue, particularly for green troops this seemed often to be crucial as to their performance, particularly in adversity. I'm just hoping the game reflects all this and does not eg say, you have lost half your men therefore your performance has been downgraded to X. Which seems to be what you are saying. No, that isn't what I have been saying and I suppose I'm not being articulate enough. I'll give it one more shot. The going to ground that I am talking about is a combination of factors. Not a simple "I have lost 50% so I am not longer effective on attack." Is the unit also tired? Is the unit currently under fire? Is the unit in C2? Is the unit tired or rested or exhausted? Is it currently exposed? Etc.... The answer to all of these questions is very clear to the player so when you run a sqaud that is nervous, out of C2 and has lost 4 out of 9 men across an open field and they take MG42 fire you would expect them to go to ground. When you have units that are broken an have 80% losses and have only regained C2 in the last 5 minutes you would expect them to be skitish and go to ground at the first hint of trouble. It is a comination of factors and when a player sees the beavior they aren't the least bit surprised. In fact they need to plan their next actions for these units with those thoughts in mind. Perhaps the best way for you to see what I am saying would be to take the CMSF or Afghan demos for a spin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BFCElvis Posted January 22, 2011 Author Share Posted January 22, 2011 1527 hrs So, as expected, my Sherman on Hill 154 got what they deserved making another effort to take out that AT gun. Or did they? Surely they were hit by a panzerfaust but my choice of the words at the end of my last update were intentional. “The crews quickly abandons the tank and hides in the tall grass……………” That’s right, the Sherman has not been knocked out but only abandoned by the crew. You can’t imagine my relief when I saw this. I am thankful that it happened in the tall wheat and am holding my breath that Jon will think it has been knocked out and won’t try too hard to go after the crew. After the way he eliminated the last crew to bail in that area I have decided on trying to get an insurance policy. Back by the knocked out Sherman patch there is a tank crew at the edge of the woods. I am going to send my 2 ½ tom truck over to grab them and bring them to the abandoned Sherman. I have never tried to mount an abandoned vehicle with a crew that wasn’t its own before. I don’t even know if it will work and I hope I won’t have to find out. Full size I get beyond lucky. Not only does the crew survive but when I order them back into the Sherman they immediately begin to climb back in. Plus when the first 3 guys get in, even before the last 2 men remount, the Shermans spots and then the TacAI fires at the foxhole. It’s then that I see they Sherman is only firing at the crew of what looks to be a knocked out AT. All this risk and the gun wasn’t even functional anymore!!! Mixed feelings. But happiness is the predominant feeling because now I know that my 4 Shermans give me mobile superiority on the map. Full size I bring my 4th Sherman up to the Villa to assist in supporting my advancing infantry. 3rd Squad/3rd Plt/ G Co is even back in action and advancing on the Villa. Full size On both hills hit and run exchanges continue. The Germans advance to contact and engage my units and then pull back. Sometimes I get some of them and sometimes they get some of mine. Full size I am starting to see Germans run to the rear of the map. I’m not able to tell if they are routing to taking up positions in the rear. But I am happy they aren’t in the Villa because that is where my focus is now. Full size Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BFCElvis Posted January 22, 2011 Author Share Posted January 22, 2011 I have been firing 75mm round from the Sherman on Hill 144 at any building in it’s LOS. The Sherman has become immobile from what appeared to be a grenade attack made by ghosts (I never saw them…just the explosion). It doesn’t worry me too much because he is starting to run out of HE and is in a great position. I don’t feel like I need to move him. In the Villa I do some German movement that is unmistakably taking up position in preparation of my arrival. I may also have flushed them out of buildings they had set up but they were no longer interested in my constant area fire. Full size Here is a long shot of the buildings they are running into. Since I have found no other traces of Germans in the Villa I figure this is where Jon is setting up his defense of the Villa. Full size With armor support I am now free to take up position around the patch of woods that is one of the components of the Villa complex victory location. I set the Sherman behind a wall along with 2 MG teams and begin to send GIs over the wall. Right now most of my attacking forces are made up of MGs, ammo bearers and HQ units. Most of these have been untouched by battle, are still in C2 and have guns. Full size The area I suspect Jon is making his last stance is a small complex of buildings behind a high wall. He is probably expecting me to come through the opening along the road but I have other plans. Among the group of banged up troops coming into the Villa from Hill 144 are what is left of 2 Pioneer squads and their HQ (7 men total). They take up position against the high wall along a building in the complex. There is more than one way into that complex….. Full size Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lanzfeld Posted January 22, 2011 Share Posted January 22, 2011 Very crafty Elvis. First class!!! You paid a price, now collect!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
user38 Posted January 22, 2011 Share Posted January 22, 2011 Very crafty Elvis. First class!!! You paid a price, now collect!!!! Elvis I am a newbie. I have been interested in military history and wargaming since I was young and I am not young anymore. As a teenager I played tabletop wargames. I tried playing some of the board wargames like Avlon Hill’s Gettysburg and Squad leader, but the games were too rules driven and abstract for my tastes. I lived on a farm for a while and I remember wandering the adjacent fields imagining Napoleonic battles over the rolling hills, through the bushland and across the creeks. At University I joined the Australian Army Reserve. I engaged in platoon and company level exercises and I learned small unit tactics. What I didn’t learn from my reading and from war movies is how miserable life is for a grunt on the line. You are tired all the time. As soon as you stop moving you dig a hole. You are woken up several times during the night to go on patrol or on picket duty. You are lucky to get four hours sleep a night. You can’t bathe and after a week in the bush you smell like a vagabond. You have to poo in a hole and you are expected to dig the hole yourself and fill it in afterwards. The real horror is that the one man ration packs issued in the 80s contained several thousand of calories in the form of fats, protein and simple carbohydrates, but only one sheet of toilet paper. (As William Tecumseh Sherman said “war is hell”.) Fortunately, the ration packs included few complex carbohydrates and no fibre whatsoever. The number two problem didn’t arise for me on exercise very frequently. Indeed, the most heroic and strenuous things I did as a soldier occurred in the company ablutions block after the exercises had finished. On top of all these miseries, if I had been a soldier in a real war my tour of duty would have lasted months rather than weeks and complete strangers would have been trying to kill me. I have drifted from my point (I guess after all these years I am still affected by my military service). I wanted to make two points. Firstly, I only discovered this game about a month ago. I tried some of the real time computer war games and they didn’t work for me. For several years I have been looking for a turn based computer war game that recreated the visual realism of the table top wargames but also properly simulated small unit tactics. I found the web site for Combat Missions Battle for Normandy late last year and wasted about four hours tying to find the link to add it to my cart (don’t these people want to make money on this game?). I felt pretty stupid when I realised the game was still in development. Nevertheless, I am very excited by this game and I think the designers have been very clever in incorporating morale factors and the uncertainties of combat. It is gratifying to see the game characters appearing to act as real humans rather than robotic plastic soldiers. The second point is more delicate. You should know that I believe you be an excellent fellow, and as a simulated officer in the US Army I acknowledge your cause is just. But I have to advise that I am rooting for the Germans to win. So with that in mind I offer the following criticism relating to the issue of realism. Your current predicament is that you have suffered horrendous losses to your armour and your infantry forces are so depleted your final assault is being mounted by the quartermaster corps. It occurs to me that in a real situation you would be unaware of the forces remaining on the field and whether the enemy might be expecting reinforcements. If you took the objective it seems you might not have sufficient forces to retain it against a counter attack. Also, your posture appears to be entirely offensive. Your disposition of forces appears to leave you vulnerable to an attack from an unexpected angle. Given these losses one would expect a prudent commander would have broken off the attack long ago and tried another approach. I understand this is a game and the object of the game is to engage in combat. And I will be buying this game on the first day it is released. It just seems to me that you have paid too high a price given the (apparent) strategic significance of the objective. Having said that I don’t think I would have done a better job myself. (I was not, after all, a very good soldier). I understand your current tactics are dictated by the scenario design which does not appear to account for the necessity to preserve forces for future actions and seems to assume secure flanks and a maximum level of enemy forces. I have enjoyed your DAR very much. And while I hope you lose, I wish you the best of luck in doing so. Stephen in Brisbane Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gunnersman Posted January 22, 2011 Share Posted January 22, 2011 Hi user 38! Have you tried "Combat Mission: Beyond Overlord"? It was the original 3D board game, so to speak. It's the granddaddy of CMBN. It's old school but it's still fun, to me. And it's cheap! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LongLeftFlank Posted January 22, 2011 Share Posted January 22, 2011 Welcome to the madness! Valid points, all, and I made this same point above; in a real engagement this attack would most likely have run out of steam long ago and an increasingly accurate rain of German mortar fire would be compelling Elvis' stalled forces to withdraw from their untenable positions. But playing it through to the bitter end with scratch reserves is fun too for those who choose it.... I do feel like the Quartermaster Corps should be quite brittle in an offensive role (Not My Job!), but that would be hard to simulate -- I wouldn't want them to become ineffective in their core roles. Note however that it is well within the control of the scenario designer to make a scenario untenable to continue (e.g. VP heavily weighted toward casualties as opposed to terrain objectives, or game simply ends at a certain casualty threshold). Elvis could also offer a Cease Fire to his opponent at any time, as could JonS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erwin Posted January 22, 2011 Share Posted January 22, 2011 User38: Welcome. Suggest you try the CM1 games that came after CMBO - CM:Beyond Barbarossa and CM:Afrika Korps. These later 2 games are more sophisticated than the very first CMBO - featuring covered arcs and tons more that was not present in CMBO. Very few people still play CMBO for that reason. In addition, whatever you buy, be sure to install ALL the patches. Also, you will find literally thousands of "mods" that you can d/l for free from this site and others that will greatly improve the visuals and sound of the CM1 games. There are also mods for the newer CM2 (CMSF series of games), but far fewer than for CM1. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BFCElvis Posted January 22, 2011 Author Share Posted January 22, 2011 Hi User38. I believe you are 100% correct. If this had been a real battle it would have been broken of after my initial failed attempt to take Hill 154. In real life I'd probably be pulled off the lines and court marshaled. The fact that you are rooting for side (even if it isn't mine) is fantastic. The feedback from these AARs has been great and it is cool to hear people are involved enough with what we are presenting that they are taking sides. I have never been particularly good at force preservation (from my old Squad Leader days through today...30+ years of wasting soldiers lives on virtual battlefields). Many of the CMSF battles have strict force preservation conditions and I struggle with them. I justify these things while playing by adding to the narrative this quote: "You must take these objectives at all cost". It helps me sleep at night. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
user38 Posted January 22, 2011 Share Posted January 22, 2011 Regarding board wargames, the realistic ones were complex, nonintuitive and time consuming. And as I had (and still have) only one friend who shares my interest in military matters, most of my board wargaming was solo. The only real option is computer wargames as I have found the computer to be adequately gratifying in relation to solo pursuits. I have now bought all the Combat Mission games (except Afghanistan) and I was trying to figure out which one to start on. Thanks for the tip - I will give Beyond Barbarossa a whirl. Regarding the scenario, I accept it is a game and is necessarily contrived. There are circumstances where the strategic situation dictates an objective is taken at all costs. (As I was writing my post I was thinking of E Company’s assault on Carentan.) One can also assume good intelligence of enemy forces in regards to forces on the field, reinforcements, etc. I guess my point was that I have been a soldier on exercise, and even before then tried to imagine what it must have been like to be involved in combat. When I see excellent war dramas like Band of Brothers I am not so much struck by the heroism as by the tragedy. Sometimes a frontal assault is preferred over manoeuvrer because there isn’t time to go around. But good gosh, Elvis has lost a lot of men to get to this point on the battlefield. I don’t envy him the task of writing virtual letter to the virtual mothers of his fallen soldiers. Elvis Thanks for being so understanding. For some reason I have always preferred the Germans (they had such cool uniforms) and, being such a softy, I think I am more temperamentally suited to the defence. I think if I were Eisenhower I would have fired Patton for being reckless. Stephen in Brisbane Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted January 22, 2011 Share Posted January 22, 2011 Have you tried "Combat Mission: Beyond Overlord"? It was the original 3D board game, so to speak. CORRECTION: I have to say that it was the original 3D miniatures game—which it more closely resembles—for computers. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackcat Posted January 22, 2011 Share Posted January 22, 2011 User38, If you enjoy the defence you are going to get pretty fed up playing solo in the CM series - the AI is bloody awful at attacking. Once you get a feel for the "rules" I suggest you start playing against human opponents. Takes the game to a whole new level. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted January 22, 2011 Share Posted January 22, 2011 I think if I were Eisenhower I would have fired Patton for being reckless. Hi Stephen and welcome to the forum. Although this is not the thread to discuss this at length (the General Forum is well suited for that), I want to say that while Patton could indeed at times be reckless, his reputation for that is exaggerated. He knew that the best way to avoid casualties was to win fast, and his tactics were pretty carefully calculated to do that, the Metz battles being a glaring and regrettable exception. He knew that the best way to win fast is to keep your enemy off balance, and the best way to do that is to do the unexpected. And the unexpected often appears to be imprudent. But a good general (which means also a lucky one) calculates nicely the odds that potential gains will exceed potential losses, but also knows when to break off the battle when he sees the losses exceeding the gains. It was the failure to do that which makes him look so bad at Metz. He kept using the same tactics there long after it was time for him to take a break and rethink the situation. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
user38 Posted January 22, 2011 Share Posted January 22, 2011 After considering Michael's reply to my post, I have to concede he is quite correct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
user38 Posted January 22, 2011 Share Posted January 22, 2011 Elvis Don't take this the wrong way, but I have been thinking about you and JonS quite a bit these last few weeks. Like a lot of people here I have been riveted by this DAR. And I would like to thank you (and JonS) for the time and thought that has gone into your detailed descriptions and explanation, and the care you have both taken to illustrate the action with screen shots. What I have especially like is seeing the action from both points of view. It is like those works of fiction with two protagonists who are both first person narrators and who have imperfect knowledge of the other protagonist’s actions. And what I have been thinking is how unfair it is that you are missing this aspect of the DAR. It would be fascinating to hear both your reactions when the battle is over and you find out what actually happened on the other side. On behalf of myself (and I assume many other forum members) I beg both you and JonS not to end the DAR with the final shot being fired but to add as a postscript some subjective analysis of your plans, assumptions and performance in light of the plans, assumptions and actions of the other side. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BFCElvis Posted January 22, 2011 Author Share Posted January 22, 2011 Elvis Don't take this the wrong way, but I have been thinking about you and JonS quite a bit these last few weeks. Like a lot of people here I have been riveted by this DAR. And I would like to thank you (and JonS) for the time and thought that has gone into your detailed descriptions and explanation, and the care you have both taken to illustrate the action with screen shots. What I have especially like is seeing the action from both points of view. It is like those works of fiction with two protagonists who are both first person narrators and who have imperfect knowledge of the other protagonist’s actions. And what I have been thinking is how unfair it is that you are missing this aspect of the DAR. It would be fascinating to hear both your reactions when the battle is over and you find out what actually happened on the other side. On behalf of myself (and I assume many other forum members) I beg both you and JonS not to end the DAR with the final shot being fired but to add as a postscript some subjective analysis of your plans, assumptions and performance in light of the plans, assumptions and actions of the other side. (I don't think I'm speaking out of school by saying this) The plan right now is that after the battle and final AARs are posted there will be a new thread dedicated to discussing what went on during the battle. A quick point about the comment you had regarding quartermaster units. All units in CM:BN are combat units. No rear echelon units are in the TO&E. You could make a case that tank crews and jeep/truck drivers are gamey to use as infantry (I never did mention that was back when I first got to Hill 144 I used a jeep driver for recon on the hill) in combat and I would probably agree. But MG teams and ammo bearers are combat units. The ammo bearer teams are made up of 4 men each with an M1 Garand. Certainly not front line troops and not what you really want to have lead your assaults but if the man has a rifle I'm going to use him if I have to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
user38 Posted January 22, 2011 Share Posted January 22, 2011 Elvis I was making a joke when I when I referred to your troops as being in the quartermaster corp. In my military career I spent some time in the catering platoon. I don't understand why, but I was sent on a cooking course at the Army Cooking School. I heard lots of stories about cooks in the Vietnam war. I was told all the rear echolon personel (including the cooks) were issued with rifles and were expected to do picket duty (albeit in the rear). Of course, they wouldn't have been sent to the front line. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted January 22, 2011 Share Posted January 22, 2011 I heard lots of stories about cooks in the Vietnam war. I was told all the rear echolon personel (including the cooks) were issued with rifles and were expected to do picket duty (albeit in the rear). Of course, they wouldn't have been sent to the front line. The thing about the Viet Nam war was that the front line was nowhere and everywhere. While most of the fighting took place out in the boonies, it could erupt suddenly in the middle of Hue or Saigon or anywhere. The air base at Danang was rocketed and mortared more than once. While the cooks and the clerks might not have been sent out on patrol or landing in an LZ, there was no guarantee that they wouldn't be exchanging fire with the enemy some day on the way to the latrine. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mord Posted January 22, 2011 Share Posted January 22, 2011 How goes it User38? Welcome aboard...You won't have to look far for opponents once you are ready... And I have to say...holy crap! If you just bought all the CM games you have a helluva ton of gaming ahead of you! The CMX1 stuff was great way back when (and the only way to get a WWII fix for now) but you'll really appreciate CMSF and Afghanistan once you dig in...the 1:1 is where it is at brother! Most of us here have been waiting 10 years to see CM do WWII 1:1 and you arrived just in time. So enjoy yourself, enjoy the games...we are a "Mostly Harmless" bunch and will be glad to answer any gaming questions you might have. Mord. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts