Elvis vs. JonS DAR Discussion Thread

[BFCElvis]

As for the complaints of being off topic, ask not what your thread can do for you, but ask what you can do for the thread. In the spirit of cooperation I would like to ask, Elvis what were the five greatest changes forced upon him/exploited by him with the new engine. i assume he played CMBO, if not then disregard the question.

See Steve, two on topic questions to help your new relevancy drive!

Some of the things are also seen in CMSF so they won't necessarily be news to some. The 5 biggest differences in the games that came into play for me in this particular battle (I would normally cite buddy aid but that didn't come into play).

Linear fire for artillery - Calling in the arty along the woods edge of Hill 154 may or may not have hurt Jon but being able to give that kind of order was key in my plan.

Indirect fire of on map mortars - The new ability to call in indirect fire of on map assets has been around since (I think) CMBB. But the system was very often difficult to use. Only the HQ unit that was closest or had strongest influence to the mortars was able to call it in. Sometimes if you had a mortar platoon HQ in position to start calling it in but the company HQ came into influence range and you couldn't call in the fire for 2 more turns (one top move the CO HQ away and the next to call it in).

Re-manning vehicles - The ability for me to re-crew the abandoned Sherman was pretty close to a game changer. In CMBO once the crew bailed to that was it.

Victory points/locations - I believe with CMBO victory locations I would have easily secured the win. I controlled the majority of the common VL and had a slightly lower percentage of casualties.

Concealment - The difference between the two probably hurt me but, who knows, it may also have helped me. When in the deep woods I would spot a German unit most times it was only one man or two men. The reason is only seeing that few out of a sqaud/team was because of the concealment (and with that most often cover) that the rest of the men had. So when firing at these units instead of the fire automatically applying to the entire squad/team it only affected those without cover.

[undead reindeer cavalry]

That my be true in some armies in some battles in some periods. It is not however a universal truth and it is not even wholly applicable to the US army in the ETO 1944-45. Even a casual reading of the history of that campaign will reveal numerous examples when the desire to get the job done trumped the need to avoid casualties.

AFAIK it's universal (e.g. possibly going to neolithic period or some million years further back in time -- think of chimps doing their territorial patrolling) and the mechanism enjoys widespeard agreement on the field (both academic and military), though it's of course far more complex and nuanced than just the idea expressed here. still that's by large how it goes and is the single most important piece of information contained by the idea.

when one is thinking about it, it's important that one realizes that the bonding is not automatical and the expression of the loyalty is not identical across cultures (e.g. going "Banzai!" out of loyalty when the worst thing imaginable in your culture is to lose one's face -- in this case to make your comrades to lose their face by your in/action in combat).

furthermore it (group cohesion) is often divided into different types of elements. e.g. the type of "social cohesion" i discussed regarding surrenders and the type of cohesion you are talking about (often called "task cohesion").

[SLAP]

On the subject of re-manning vehicles – Elvis, you had intended to rush another crew over to replace the crew of the Sherman which bailed. But you didn't need to as you managed to get the original crew back on-board.

This has previously been impossible in CM:SF. Is it now possible to man tanks with different crews?

SLAP

[Vark]

Thanks for the reply. How did the relative spotting affect your initial strategy and impact your plans? I'm thinking of the problems of buttoned AFV's spotting, in particular.

[futon river crossing]

Elvis - regarding the game outcome - you seemed to think you'd won the game - were you shocked when you found out you'd lost!!?

[BFCElvis]

On the subject of re-manning vehicles – Elvis, you had intended to rush another crew over to replace the crew of the Sherman which bailed. But you didn't need to as you managed to get the original crew back on-board.

This has previously been impossible in CM:SF. Is it now possible to man tanks with different crews?

SLAP

And it is in CMBN as well. I think when I made that post that I wasn't even sure if it was something I could do but I never went back and double checked. Before posting this I did check it. Crew can only re-man their own vehicles.

[BFCElvis]

Elvis - regarding the game outcome - you seemed to think you'd won the game - were you shocked when you found out you'd lost!!?

Understatement.

And maybe this can be changed but when the game ended I couldn't see his VLs which compounded my shock. Once I looked at the names of his objectives and saw the map from his side I understood. And I also understood from a stratigic point of view why it was the way it was. But my initial reaction? There was about 5 minutes of thinking WTF!?!??!?!.

[BFCElvis]

Thanks for the reply. How did the relative spotting affect your initial strategy and impact your plans? I'm thinking of the problems of buttoned AFV's spotting, in particular.

Relative spotting didn't factor into my initial plans at all. The map was a complete clean slate until his first Jpz IV appeared and by then everything had been set in motion.

[Blackcat]

AFAIK it's universal (e.g. possibly going to neolithic period or some million years further back in time -- think of chimps doing their territorial patrolling) and the mechanism enjoys widespeard agreement on the field (both academic and military), though it's of course far more complex and nuanced than just the idea expressed here. still that's by large how it goes and is the single most important piece of information contained by the idea.

when one is thinking about it, it's important that one realizes that the bonding is not automatical and the expression of the loyalty is not identical across cultures (e.g. going "Banzai!" out of loyalty when the worst thing imaginable in your culture is to lose one's face -- in this case to make your comrades to lose their face by your in/action in combat).

furthermore it (group cohesion) is often divided into different types of elements. e.g. the type of "social cohesion" i discussed regarding surrenders and the type of cohesion you are talking about (often called "task cohesion").

You and I are not talking about the same thing. Please read my post again.

[Battlefront.com]

The notion that total casualties or unit surrendering behavior in CM:BN is somehow made worse by an engineered system just shows the ignorance of the person making such an argument. Which isn't surprising, since as far as I know the only person in this discussion that has practical experience designing, making, and maintaining both systems is me.

I disagree that surrendering was always an "all or nothing" experience. If an individual was in a position where he felt he could slip away I would think he would. Others, in more exposed positions, might not feel they have an option and toss up their hands. However, I do agree that the smaller the unit is the more likely everybody should give up at once. I'll see if Charles wants to make some tweaks there.

Steve

[sfhand]

And it is in CMBN as well. I think when I made that post that I wasn't even sure if it was something I could do but I never went back and double checked. Before posting this I did check it. Crew can only re-man their own vehicles.

I'm wishing this was not the case... In one of my current pbem's, I have one fully functional bmp2 with only a driver and one fully functional crew with a destroyed bmp2. I also have a bmp2 gunner, a lone survivor, who would like nothing better than to pop off a couple of rounds at the enemy. While it seems intuitive that adding a gunner from one crew to a driver of another would be messy, is allowing crews from one vehicle type to crew another similar/same vehicle on the lengthy list of things to do?

[BFCElvis]

I'm wishing this was not the case... In one of my current pbem's, I have one fully functional bmp2 with only a driver and one fully functional crew with a destroyed bmp2. I also have a bmp2 gunner, a lone survivor, who would like nothing better than to pop off a couple of rounds at the enemy. While it seems intuitive that adding a gunner from one crew to a driver of another would be messy, is allowing crews from one vehicle type to crew another similar/same vehicle on the lengthy list of things to do?

I'm the wrong guy to answer that.

[LongLeftFlank]

Just seems a little too gamey to me. Multiple crews means its a shootin war, and getting back in a tin can is risky. Maybe I feel some obligation to reman my own, but someone else's? Nah, let's sit that one out. Anyway, how do I know it's operable? By the time I find out I could be burning to death like Hans did just now....

[sfhand]

I guess it all depends on one's perspective... I've seen surviving crew used in ways that seem a lot more "gamey" to me (I'm sure I've been guilty of it as well). Now if I was wanting jeep drivers to drive tanks I'd see your point but in theory, if a team is trained to operate a bmp2 they should be able to operate any generic bmp2.

As far as the riskyness of getting back in a bmp2, well, lets just say you're understating things a bit... those guys weren't going to survive in or out of the can.

[SLAP]

I've read first and third person accounts of WWII crews re-joining a battle in a different tank to the one they started in, so I don't consider it particularly gamey.

I've always thought it was odd that it wasn't possible in CM:SF, given what else the crew can do. For example, in a game last night I used a (depleted) Abrams crew to raid a Stryker for its Javelin and all available ammo, then managed to knock out two tanks as a result. In fact, it's possible to bail crews at the start of a game, acquire Javelins, then put them back into their (original) tank, effectively giving them extra AT assets to carry with them for the rest of the scenario...

Anyway, really appreciated the DAR/AAR.

SLAP

[Vark]

Does the whole crew have to bail? I've read many accounts where the commander and one other (mainly the loader) goes on a recce to see what's ahead. I used to carry tank hunter teams to partially simulate this, trouble was they are very vulnerable whilst being carried. On gamey tactics, I think the trying to get to surrendering soldiers before the enemy is a tad wrong. From most accounts I've read the soldiers who surrender move towards their captors, not hang around with their arms up. Captured soldiers can give vital realtime information and armies often put a premium on moving them quickly to be interogated. IMO if a soldier dawdled, in the hope of rescue, he might expect a persuasive rifle but, or worse.

[BFCElvis]

I trust we all understand that, and understand also that it implies no modern battle simulation without prominent morale systems can be realistic. CM is successful because it does have such systems. It would be even more realisitc if they were stronger, and measured against actual typical battlefield outcomes to get the strength of such effects about right.

Nor am I asking for paralysis in saying this. When I win CMx1 battles I routinely do so with losses far below the levels seen in this AAR, and approximating those seen in actual tactical combats. Yes the losing side sometimes gets blown out - and that do does happen in real life, though nothing like every time.

I hope that deals with the various straw men...

No offense but I'm not interested in getting pulled into this vortex. But I do want to add a couple of things that are on topic.

I'm not sure what impression I gave in my description of the battered up men that assembled on Hill 144. So I want ti emphasize a couple of points that may not have been clear in the official AAR (although if you look back all this information is in my AAR).

The first point is that from the time the Pioneers were hit on the truck and when they arrived at the wall next to the Alamo a half hour of game time (before posting I checked the game time in the screen shots of the truck hit and the arrival at the wall) had taken place. About 25 minutes of which was spend regrouping. Time spent just getting them in condition enough to move without constantly going to ground and disregarding orders. This is what I was also trying to do on Hill 154 when I tried to move men along the treeline to screen for the Sherman. It took about an hour of game time to wrestle them to the position where they finished the game.

The other thing I may not have spelled out clearly enough is the remnants of 1st and 3rd Platoon along with the remnants of the Pioneer Platoon did not and would not all move off of Hill 144. And this is with all of them having had lots of time to regroup in C2. During the move to the Villa I don't believe they faced any enemy fire. The Alamo was not cleared by any offsive action from these troops (except maybe the breaching team).The Alamo was cleared by a combination of the breach on bad condition German troops and (most importantly) the Sherman that cleared all the buildings. The guys from Hill 144 faced no fire in the Villa and did nothing beyond sitting on victory locations. They would be worthless in any kind of fire fight and of even less value in launching an attack.

The morale of roughed up troops is heavily modeled in the game and if your men get beat up you can count on them for very little for the rest of the battle.

And finally regarding the overall losses, the levels in this battle are not the norm. If I were to guess average losses I would put it in the mid 20% range. Averages are made of highs and lows.

[Rocky Balboa]

Of course the guys playing the game have the best view point on this but from the spectators seats it looked like Elvis made 2 key blunders which led to most of his casualties.

1. He moved too recklessly into the forest on hill 154 and essentially walked into a heavily entrenched German ambush.

2. In a rush to secure his advance on hill 144 he allowed a good portion of his engineers to be taken out by a single AP round.

[BFCElvis]

Of course the guys playing the game have the best view point on this but from the spectators seats it looked like Elvis made 2 key blunders which led to most of his casualties.

1. He moved too recklessly into the forest on hill 154 and essentially walked into a heavily entrenched German ambush.

2. In a rush to secure his advance on hill 144 he allowed a good portion of his engineers to be taken out by a single AP round.

That's the way I saw it too.

If I had left the Hill 154 guys in place to organize a hunt through the woods and if I had brought the Pioneers on foot instead of the truck I would have been in a MUCH better position to win. Everyone on foot moving up that side of the map made it to Hill 144 with no problem. Once the sniper et al were taken out it became a big(ish) hole.

[LongLeftFlank]

We've all been there with the trucks. Trucks are death traps on the front line in open terrain (I know it was actually a close range grenade that killed this particular truck). Haste maketh waste.

[LongLeftFlank]

I've read first and third person accounts of WWII crews re-joining a battle in a different tank to the one they started in, so I don't consider it particularly gamey.

Me too!

...and giving equal time to the Mother Country

(Hat tip to my tough-as-nails English gran who mailed me Wizards and Battles and Valiants for years and years. Even though I had to fight my dad for first read.)

[astano]

Maybe this was mentioned elsewhere and I missed it, but I'm curious to know what the quality of Elvis' and JonS's troops were?

[WineCape]

LLF,

You planning on getting rid of those magazines? :-D

[Michael Emrys]

The first point is that from the time the Pioneers were hit on the truck and when they arrived at the wall next to the Alamo a half hour of game time (before posting I checked the game time in the screen shots of the truck hit and the arrival at the wall) had taken place. About 25 minutes of which was spend regrouping. Time spent just getting them in condition enough to move without constantly going to ground and disregarding orders. This is what I was also trying to do on Hill 154 when I tried to move men along the treeline to screen for the Sherman. It took about an hour of game time to wrestle them to the position where they finished the game.

The other thing I may not have spelled out clearly enough is the remnants of 1st and 3rd Platoon along with the remnants of the Pioneer Platoon did not and would not all move off of Hill 144. And this is with all of them having had lots of time to regroup in C2. During the move to the Villa I don't believe they faced any enemy fire. The Alamo was not cleared by any offsive action from these troops (except maybe the breaching team).The Alamo was cleared by a combination of the breach on bad condition German troops and (most importantly) the Sherman that cleared all the buildings. The guys from Hill 144 faced no fire in the Villa and did nothing beyond sitting on victory locations. They would be worthless in any kind of fire fight and of even less value in launching an attack.

The morale of roughed up troops is heavily modeled in the game and if your men get beat up you can count on them for very little for the rest of the battle.

That sounds okay to me.

A side note: Is it technically possible to show game time or turn number in one corner of the screenshots? I know that you often mention the time at the start of your posts, but having the time actually represented in the pics would make it a lot easier to follow the action and place each screenshot in relation to the action in others.

Michael

[LongLeftFlank]

LLF,

You planning on getting rid of those magazines? :-D

When you (or my wife, who Just Doesn't Get It) pry them from my cold dead fingers....