A Quick Battle AAR: Shermans vs Pz IVs, Not Your Fathers Combat Mission

[dieseltaylor]

How are you going to have ladder games where the results are nonsensical?

Who cares as the game engine will be indifferent to either sides feelings as what is nonsensical.

Anyway are not ladders terribly passe for true players!

[Joachim]

The results, to me, seemed to have little or no connection to the outcome of the battle!

The objective didn't appear to have been taken; the Germans lost 42% of their tank force and 22% of their manpower; the US still had a sizeable infantry presence which the Germans, with only tanks and in the given terrain, could not have easily rooted out.

A tactical or marginal victory at best and even that is questionable IMO.

The US lost about twice the amount in vehicles and about 2.5 to 3 times the men. Given that two forces about the same amount of "purchase points" fought each other, a major victory re losses seems correct. The US inf could try to achieve some objectives, but the US commander decided to call it quits. There is not much sense in trying to push an inf Co vs several tanks in terrain like that. Neither in RL nor in CMx1. I guess CMx2 models this, too.

1) The remaining inf presence was kept in check by the remaining German tanks. Standard SOP for US forces would have been to call up more armor, air force or arty. But I doubt the remaining force would have pushed the matter much (except for rare occassions, which CM doesn't model). Applying the "You don't win a war by dying for your country, you win wars by making the other fellas die for their country." doctrine means an end of battle without taking the objectives with inf.

2) In RL the US forces would not know the strength (or weakness) of the German force. Would you attack several German tanks with a company of inf? Now imagine a German inf Co nearby....

3) I can't remember that CMx1 counted what one could have achieved after the end of the battle. A certain amount of turns (or ceasefire before that), then end of battle and what is achieved then counts. Even in a campaign with manual decisions by GMs I wouldn't bet much on a US victory when resolving the post battle orders. The US inf had their chance with armor support. Armor support dwindled. The likely reply for a US claim of victory would be that nobody wants to die like a hero but prefers to fight another day. So US survivors (not knowing that there was no German inf) would fall back and regroup.

On the strategic picture the German losses would matter more - but holding the ground they could reclaim their tanks, reducing their losses. And any battle on that scale would not matter much anyway. So why try to put it into a strategic context? (CMx1 didn't use that context, too - and ladders did work)

On a tactical level, Bil did better with his forces. He wiped any armor from the field. He used a pure armor force, giving him an edge in tanks - but lack of scouts. Warren used a combined arms force that granted him the ability to scout better with his inf (Good decision!). But IMHO he did not use that advantage. He could have used his inf to scout Bil's deployment and screen some approaches, then hit him hard with concentrated armor in one location (ie use combined arms tactics).

Read: IMHO Warren did a major mistake. I couldn't find a (major) mistake in Bil's orders.

So IMHO we have a clear winner.

[Peregrine]

The US lost about twice the amount in vehicles and about 2.5 to 3 times the men. Given that two forces about the same amount of "purchase points" fought each other, a major victory re losses seems correct. The US inf could try to achieve some objectives, but the US commander decided to call it quits. There is not much sense in trying to push an inf Co vs several tanks in terrain like that. Neither in RL nor in CMx1. I guess CMx2 models this, too.

1) The remaining inf presence was kept in check by the remaining German tanks. Standard SOP for US forces would have been to call up more armor, air force or arty. But I doubt the remaining force would have pushed the matter much (except for rare occassions, which CM doesn't model). Applying the "You don't win a war by dying for your country, you win wars by making the other fellas die for their country." doctrine means an end of battle without taking the objectives with inf.

2) In RL the US forces would not know the strength (or weakness) of the German force. Would you attack several German tanks with a company of inf? Now imagine a German inf Co nearby....

3) I can't remember that CMx1 counted what one could have achieved after the end of the battle. A certain amount of turns (or ceasefire before that), then end of battle and what is achieved then counts. Even in a campaign with manual decisions by GMs I wouldn't bet much on a US victory when resolving the post battle orders. The US inf had their chance with armor support. Armor support dwindled. The likely reply for a US claim of victory would be that nobody wants to die like a hero but prefers to fight another day. So US survivors (not knowing that there was no German inf) would fall back and regroup.

On the strategic picture the German losses would matter more - but holding the ground they could reclaim their tanks, reducing their losses. And any battle on that scale would not matter much anyway. So why try to put it into a strategic context? (CMx1 didn't use that context, too - and ladders did work)

On a tactical level, Bil did better with his forces. He wiped any armor from the field. He used a pure armor force, giving him an edge in tanks - but lack of scouts. Warren used a combined arms force that granted him the ability to scout better with his inf (Good decision!). But IMHO he did not use that advantage. He could have used his inf to scout Bil's deployment and screen some approaches, then hit him hard with concentrated armor in one location (ie use combined arms tactics).

Read: IMHO Warren did a major mistake. I couldn't find a (major) mistake in Bil's orders.

So IMHO we have a clear winner.

Battlefront have already stated that this is still a BETA and the "results" that occurred in this game was not the finalised product. I'm hoping for results are more along the lines of what CMBB/CMAK was like. No idea how CMSF did it.

[aka_tom_w]

Yes, keep in mind game is still in the Beta testing stage of software development.

[Joachim]

Battlefront have already stated that this is still a BETA and the "results" that occurred in this game was not the finalised product. I'm hoping for results are more along the lines of what CMBB/CMAK was like. No idea how CMSF did it.

Hmmm..... I dunno about the exact mechanics, but there are 3 categories for victory points: Ground, targets and parameters.

Dunno what "Parameters" are - maybe similar to exit points?

In the given AAR there were no "targets", so killing units did not influence the score. I guess it will be possible to mark all units as targets during QB purchase.

If the ground objectives for both sides are the same (ie the old flags) and each unit is a target (only those give kill points in CMBN) and "parameters" are not part of the score, then IMHO the result should about match CMx1 QBs.

[Battlefront.com]

The QB scoring, as used here in this particular game, is based on the same system that is used for hand made battles. In that the designer assigns a "threshold" and a number of points for casualties (friendly and/or enemy). If that threshold is met, then the points are awarded. If the threshold is not met, the points aren't awarded. There's no "partial credit". The designer, instead, determines how easily these points should be awarded and then assigns a value that keeps the casualty portion of victory proportional to the rest of the victory scoring. This allows the designer to make casualties very important, not at all important, or somewhere inbetween relative to what that particular battle's story calls for.

This system works very, very well. It's been around since the beginning of CMx2 and nobody has complained about the system itself. Sometimes people can get some results they don't agree with, but that's in the hands of the scenario designer.

However, this scoring system doesn't work so well in some ways with the needs of QB scoring. Why? Because QBs are generic in the sense that there isn't a Human determining what the victory conditions are for the specific forces, map, and type of battle (Assault, Meeting, etc). So the game has to keep things rather generic to match the character of QBs.

In the game you saw played out there is a generic threshold for causing enemy casualties and the points that come from exceeding the threshold come away from the points awarded for Victory Locations. In this case neither side tripped that threshold, therefore neither side was awarded any points for casualties. Which means the Victory Location control determined the victor.

Now, we're aware that this is suboptimal for QBs for a number of reasons. It's a point that our Testers have brought up already. But with our plates full of all kinds of things we didn't prioritize addressing this issue prior to the AAR battle you watched. However, we have now dome some tweaking so there are explicit points for killing stuff and those points are subtracted from the Victory Location's worth. Meaning, the player that controls the Victory Location/s at the end of the game will likely win *if* he's not taken unreasonably high casualties compared to the other player. The range of victory awarded (Major, Tactical, etc.) can be influenced by casualties as well.

That should fix things up nicely

Steve

[futon river crossing]

Cool - I think!

[James Crowley]

The bottom line, for me at least, is to understand the reasons why I have won, lost or all the degrees between. The results screen needs to reflect that fairly accurately.

Anything else, be it AI devised or designer devised, is largely irrelavent.

The revision, hopefully, adresses that issue.

[James Crowley]

So IMHO we have a clear winner.

In a table-top competition game or an RTS clickfest, maybe. In a game which has at least some pretentions towards a realistic simulation of tactical level combat, not by a nautical mile.

After a whole 18 minutes of combat, with neither side knowing what else the other side has by way of assets, in a game which has a 60 minute window?

Am I missing something? Don't think I would want a CO who losses 42% of his force and thinks he has a major victory!

[sburke]

Am I missing something? Don't think I would want a CO who losses 42% of his force and thinks he has a major victory!

sounds like your average business manager or perhaps a Transocean executive getting a safety award the same year they turned the gulf into a replica of Charlie Sheen's bath water after his oil massage scrub down.

[Bil Hardenberger]

Am I missing something? Don't think I would want a CO who losses 42% of his force and thinks he has a major victory!

When did I say that? I said in my debrief that I would call it a tactical victory, what's the problem?

Here are the facts:

I lost 5 tanks... had 10 killed and 3 wounded.

I also held the field at the end of the game and had a toe hold on the objective.

Warren, lost 5 tanks, 4 TDs, and 2 armored cars.

He had 41 casualties (24 KIA, 15 WIA, 2 MIA) and except for his infantry which were non-players, he was routed from the field.

I don't give a rat's ass of the repurcussions operationally, this was a quick battle stand alone game, not a game in a campaign.

So sue me, yes I think I won the game. Lighten up man.

[panzermartin]

Great news Steve! QBs would generate some weird results with no casualties taken into consideration.

[sburke]

So sue me, yes I think I won the game. Lighten up man.

LOL chalk it up to pre release jitters, like dating someone for weeks on end and never getting past first base when everything you see tells you this will be the best sex of your life... in game terms.. really... no really.

At least you get to go back to your PC and play another round. We all can only look at the centerfolds and drool. Hell we don't even have movie clips. :-P We're jealous- you get to play AND win, so not fair!!!

[LJFHutch]

But why can't QBs be realistic? I think "authentic" is a more appropriate word actually. Due to the player selected forces they have to be simpler in terms of background, point scoring, and deployment, but other than that I don't see the difference really. You still have the same [relatively low compared to a campaign] will to preserve your troops, take ground etc.

[Bertram]

But why can't QBs be realistic? I think "authentic" is a more appropriate word actually. Due to the player selected forces they have to be simpler in terms of background, point scoring, and deployment, but other than that I don't see the difference really. You still have the same [relatively low compared to a campaign] will to preserve your troops, take ground etc.

Obviously you should first define "realistic". It seems different people have different opinions on what realistic is.

What is clear is that the point scoring is different from a scenario. In a scenario there is a background and a surrounding world. The outcome of the scenario can either be reflected on the real world outcome (if historical) or on the outcome the scenario writer expected.

In a quick battle there are only objectives. There is no background - so it is anyones guess if preserving your forces is more, equal, or less important then getting the victory location. Maybe taking the victory location in this QB won the Germans the war.... would the loss of a few Panzers matter then? Maybe it was irellevant in the larger war efforts - and it looses the Germans the war because they lack the tanks elsewhere...

As it is there is an arbitairy value to preserving your force, and an arbitrary value for the victory locations. You can not like the balance, but whatever the balance is, you can never state is isnt "realistic" without knowing the issue at stake in a wider view (which is of course impossible, because there simply isnt a wider reality).

[gunnersman]

As it is there is an arbitairy value to preserving your force, and an arbitrary value for the victory locations.

It is possible to set this as a parameter for a "victory". The scenario designer may set this as a goal. "Preserve XX% of your force". Obviously that's not going to be in a quick battle...because that's the whole point...it's suppose to be a quick setup.

[SKELLEN]

Enjoyed the AAR guys, congrats Bill. The German tank crews with headphones looked a little comical I must say, anyone would think they were being used to help silence the deafening sound of their lugers.

Tank tread marks (although I know it's not a necessity) but not one in sight, is this a planned feature in time?

Otherwise the game is looking fantastic, well done to all at BFC.:cool:

[argie]

When did I say that? I said in my debrief that I would call it a tactical victory, what's the problem?

Here are the facts:

I lost 5 tanks... had 10 killed and 3 wounded.

I also held the field at the end of the game and had a toe hold on the objective.

Warren, lost 5 tanks, 4 TDs, and 2 armored cars.

He had 41 casualties (24 KIA, 15 WIA, 2 MIA) and except for his infantry which were non-players, he was routed from the field.

I don't give a rat's ass of the repurcussions operationally, this was a quick battle stand alone game, not a game in a campaign.

So sue me, yes I think I won the game. Lighten up man.

I propose a game feature consisting in automatically sending the AARs for QBs to James Crowley e-mail, so he can asses for us the REAL results of every battle.

[James Crowley]

When did I say that? I said in my debrief that I would call it a tactical victory, what's the problem?

So sue me, yes I think I won the game. Lighten up man.

Bil, you didn't say it - and I didn't mean to imply otherwise - the results screen did.

We both agree it was a tactical victory; the result screen seemed to be at odds with that view and that was the purpose of my comment. Perhaps I was less than clear.

Steve has indicated that a revision is being made to the results screen for QBs, which suggests that my criticism wasn't too far off the mark. So no problem, eh?

Perhaps lightening up all round might be a good idea.

[James Crowley]

I propose a game feature consisting in automatically sending the AARs for QBs to James Crowley e-mail, so he can asses for us the REAL results of every battle.

And your problem is what, exactly? I refer you to my previous post.

[MarkEzra]

James' point (I think) is a playing style that considers casualties as a prism for the players tactical ability. To me that's the purest essence of wargaming. But sometimes I like to play... ummm... a little looser style, I JUST Gotta say it, "Man I'm in you base, killing your Dudes!"

[Bil Hardenberger]

Bil, you didn't say it - and I didn't mean to imply otherwise - the results screen did.

We both agree it was a tactical victory; the result screen seemed to be at odds with that view and that was the purpose of my comment. Perhaps I was less than clear.

Steve has indicated that a revision is being made to the results screen for QBs, which suggests that my criticism wasn't too far off the mark. So no problem, eh?

Perhaps lightening up all round might be a good idea.

Actually, to be accurate the results screen said German Total Victory.

Yes, I misunderstood your comments as an attack on me, for that I apologize (re-read your posts and I think you will see how I came to that conclusion). I was about to challenge you to a duel.

Your criticism about how the scoring has been done for QBs is indeed on target and is something that has been a reported bug for a while now.

[futon river crossing]

Who cares as the game engine will be indifferent to either sides feelings as what is nonsensical.

Anyway are not ladders terribly passe for true players!

Battlefront cares

[Vanir Ausf B]

Anyway are not ladders terribly passe for true players!

Nooooooooo

[James Crowley]

Yes, I misunderstood your comments as an attack on me, for that I apologize (re-read your posts and I think you will see how I came to that conclusion). I was about to challenge you to a duel.

Hehe, no problem.

I was passionate about CMX1, untouched by CMSF but hope to rekindle the passion with CMBN. I tend to get a bit carried away when I'm pontificating and I'm a dreadful typist, so often the written word doesn't quite match the thought process.

Now, as to a duel, I'm fairly good with a pistol but the old sword is a bit rusty and blunt -rather like its owner