Operational Game to go with CMBN

[LongLeftFlank]

This plays at a battalion scale too, and the map is a work of art. Never quite worked up the nerve to drop the necessary coin to buy it though. I love those Heer map symbols on the counters -- a nice break from the little "Xs" and "TV sets".

[ChrisND]

This plays at a battalion scale too, and the map is a work of art. Never quite worked up the nerve to drop the necessary coin to buy it though. I love those Heer map symbols on the counters -- a nice break from the little "Xs" and "TV sets".

OooooOOOOh that looks cool. I haven't played a tabletop wargame in almost a decade, but the sight of them still sends me into nerd-joy. The bigger and more intricate the better.

[Broadsword56]

If anyone wants a Cyberboard module for St Lo., just PM me -- I've got it now from someone who made a good one.

[sburke]

This plays at a battalion scale too, and the map is a work of art. Never quite worked up the nerve to drop the necessary coin to buy it though. I love those Heer map symbols on the counters -- a nice break from the little "Xs" and "TV sets".

This is also available as a free module for Aide de camp program, though I still prefer the HPS games as the OoB goes to company scale and lower and can be editted. Do like the Heer symbols on this as well. Took a little getting used to but very informative.

[Barkhorn1x]

I believe AH sold about 20 copies of TLD - and 10 actually got played.

[tdogg]

Great topic, having an operational layer for a CM game is something I've been longing for since CMBO. I was heart broken with the failure of CMC, but some kind of external game may do the trick.

Will be watching this thread closely.

[sburke]

I believe AH sold about 20 copies of TLD - and 10 actually got played.

I was one of the 20....but not one of the 10 sadly. Though it was really perty to look at.

[Tactical Wargamer]

If anyone wants a Cyberboard module for St Lo., just PM me -- I've got it now from someone who made a good one.

Sorry what is cyberboard is that similar to vassal. Which is superiour of the two?

[Broadsword56]

Cyberboard is similar to Vassal and some players prefer one or the other. Some games have been converted into modules for one and not the other, so your choice also depends on what boardgame game you're looking to play electronically. Some players say Cyberboard's features better support PBEM, but I don't know either way. One key consideration is your system: Cyberboard is Windows-only, while Vassal works on PC, Mac, and others. A good brief summary of what Cyberboard is and how it works can be found here: http://wargamecenter.wordpress.com/2010/05/10/cyberboard/

[Broadsword56]

Great topic, having an operational layer for a CM game is something I've been longing for since CMBO. I was heart broken with the failure of CMC, but some kind of external game may do the trick.

Will be watching this thread closely.

The mapmaking for CM-resolved battalion battles would be the biggest challenge. I'm thinking I'd enjoy just role-playing as the commander of one battalion, in, say, the 29th ID, and play it out in an operational game, but also follow that one battalion's progress by playing out its battles in CMBN. I'd let the operational game take care of the rest of the war.

It would make a helluva game, and a great AAR to read as well.

[Lt Belenko]

Google "Longest Day Avalon Hill". You can buy the original complete AH board game on DVD - cheap $7.00. Rules, counters and maps all on disk. Even the variants and AH General Mag articles. All you need is a computer/printer, scissors and glue. The board mounted sells for $75 or so.

[Noba]

I was one of the 20....but not one of the 10 sadly. Though it was really perty to look at.

I was part of a group of players, usually 5, that managed to start three or four games. I think we completed two of those. Huge commitment in time but it played quite well.

Noba.

[Broadsword56]

Reading about the AH Longest Day game, though, IMHO it seems big but rather simplistic -- it doesn't seem to have activation/initiative rules, for example, or a lot of modeling of morale and fatigue the way St. Lo does it. To each his own...

By the way, how might one best translate board wargames that use "step reduction" combat results back and forth with CMBN battles?

[dan/california]

By the way, how might one best translate board wargames that use "step reduction" combat results back and forth with CMBN battles?

That won't cause any disagreement, none at all.

[Broadsword56]

The other nice thing about the St. Lo boardgame map is it's not only battalion scale, but 3.5 hexes per kilometer, 14 elevation levels -- enough even to show individual farms. So at least more terrain detail to use as a starting point for CMBN maps than the ones using bigger map scales.

[noob]

After i saw this thread i decided to post the link to my site sooner than later to see if anyone on this thread would be interested in taking part, there are some more rules i have to cover but the bulk of the work is done, however i need the CMBN game that i have pre ordered to finalise the OOBs of the respective sides so im hoping to start the operation in May or no later than June depending on the release of CMBN.

https://sites.google.com/site/cmbnomahatostlo/

Above is a link to my website containg explaining the concept and the rules.

Once i have finalised the OOBs i will put them on two seperate websites for each side.

[JasonC]

Normandy '44 is a great game. And it has plenty of chrome and detail that works for an operational layer. The units are mostly regiments and battalions, not companies BTW. Each combat will typically have various "adds" that naturally translate into tactical force mixes (artillery or not, armor or not or armor cancelled by AT or defending armor). Terrain basically adds defense strength points but to no more than double the defenders and only if they have infantry. The terrain types are detailed enough to set the basic terrain for a tactical depiction. You can reduce unit scales involved by a fixed formula - it would typically be something like a factor of 10, or two "step sizes". (Since large attacks frequently send a full division and you'd want no more than about a battalion on the tactical map).

[JasonC]

Longest Day is unplayable really and not a good game system - Normandy '44 beats it by miles.

As for vassal vs. cyberboard, vassal is way better. Good server support for online play, and correct rule enforcement and sequence of play for many modules, where cyberboard mostly requires the players to do everything manually.

[noob]

Normandy '44 is a great game. And it has plenty of chrome and detail that works for an operational layer. The units are mostly regiments and battalions, not companies BTW. Each combat will typically have various "adds" that naturally translate into tactical force mixes (artillery or not, armor or not or armor cancelled by AT or defending armor). Terrain basically adds defense strength points but to no more than double the defenders and only if they have infantry. The terrain types are detailed enough to set the basic terrain for a tactical depiction. You can reduce unit scales involved by a fixed formula - it would typically be something like a factor of 10, or two "step sizes". (Since large attacks frequently send a full division and you'd want no more than about a battalion on the tactical map).

Good post Jason, i know you know your stuff, so if, when i run my N44 operation using CMBN to resolve the tactical combat am i right in saying that you recommend one battalion per N44 hex / CMBN battle map of 1 x 1 km and no more ?

The largest CMBN maps managable will probably be 2 x 2 km so that would be maximum of 4 battalions for the attacker, am i correct ?

I want some sort of stacking limit just so the files dont get too big so this sounds like a good rule of thumb.

Also while we are on the subject and if you dont mind me asking i would like your opinion on the % of casualties a unit has to suffer to force it to disband or be out of action for say 38 hours ?

[LongLeftFlank]

Longest Day is unplayable really and not a good game system - Normandy '44 beats it by miles.

Not hard to believe. All AH games above Panzerblitz seem to end up with trench warfare gridlock across the map. Been true since Tactics II. The "exploitation" rules either never work well or create lopsided non-contests (France, 1940).

I never bothered reading the CMC subforum or played Onion Wars, so I actually don't know much about this topic and am curious to know a little more. Resolving even selected battalion level combats that take place in a wargame, even on the smaller scale of "St Lo", on the basis of CM battles seems tricky.

For example, on 20 June the US might conduct 3 successive attacks; the first 2 stall miserably but the third partly succeeds in breaking into the German lines. And then that night the Germans counterattack. How do you handle that? At the end of the wargame turn (1 day?), how do you determine who controls the hex(es) being contested. Or is that simply agnostic to the outcome of the CM fight?

[sburke]

Not hard to believe. All AH games above Panzerblitz seem to end up with trench warfare gridlock across the map. Been true since Tactics II. The "exploitation" rules either never work well or create lopsided non-contests (France, 1940).

I never bothered reading the CMC subforum or played Onion Wars, so I actually don't know much about this topic and am curious to know a little more. Resolving even selected battalion level combats that take place in a wargame, even on the smaller scale of "St Lo", on the basis of CM battles seems tricky.

For example, on 20 June the US might conduct 3 successive attacks; the first 2 stall miserably but the third partly succeeds in breaking into the German lines. And then that night the Germans counterattack. How do you handle that? At the end of the wargame turn (1 day?), how do you determine who controls the hex(es) being contested. Or is that simply agnostic to the outcome of the CM fight?

Actually N44 might work very well with that as it has 2 hour turn increments in daylight with additional night turns. You can also edit both the X,Y axis to only use a portion of the map as well as edit your OoB down to platoon level if desired. It is possible though I would tend to agree with others. I expect I will be spending time trying CMBN before I would be ready to commit to an endeavor like this. Something smaller in scale similar to the TCS series by the gamers might be more workable.

By the way your Ramadi scenario and map is awesome. It has resparked my interest in CMSF. And yes the 1:1 scale really does make one react more as you see your pixeltruppen getting gunned down in the alleys versus just the stooges doing the jerk routine.

[tdogg]

Also, if you search you can find a thread where jasonc use a gmt operational board game to generate cmbb battles. It was pretty cool, thought of doing it myself cuz you could play solitaire, but never got around to it.

[Broadsword56]

Just to help folks assess best operational games to use with CMBN, here's a detailed review of St. Lo from back when the game was first published -- it also has an illustrated example of play:

http://wargamememories.com/Documents/St%20Lo%20Review%20and%20Example%20of%20Play.pdf

And here's a more recent AAR:

http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/128039/aar-st-lo

What I find particularly appealing about the St Lo system are its initiative/morale/recovery rules, which force you to manage units and pull them out of the line -- or risk having them be unable to attack when you need them to. This also makes it a good game for solitaire play.

If the hexes in N44 are several km, then the battlefields would of necessity have to be pretty big. And then how would you split up the regimental stacks, etc?

In St Lo, not only are the units already battalions, but the hexes are only 304 meters. So the map it a lot more detailed (good for making CMBN maps) and seems to lend itself more easily to seeing the boundaries of the the tactical battles and the units involved.

The turn scale in St. Lo is one day per turn. But during each player's segment, the phasing player makes rolls for initiative checks and spends "action points" to make things happen. I imagine that it could just be up to the players to decide if a pending battalion battle ought to be played out in CMBN or not --the idea being that the tactical level ought to be saved for battles that are the most interesting or critical to the overall campaign. This would be a matter of consensus and level of interest.

[Broadsword56]

Thought you all might enjoy this -- I was trying to to figure out the best way to translate the step losses/cohesion hits of an operational Normandy game to the specific personnel strengths of units at the tactical level in CMBN.

So I e-mailed Joe Balkoski, the official 29th ID historian who designed the St. Lo. game and wrote "Beyond the Beachhead" about that campaign. He answered in detail, and gave me permission to share it here:

--

Thanks very much for your message and kind words about my work. I appreciate it. I'm afraid I'm not going to be of too much help, as my work on the St. Lo game was in 1984 -- 27 years ago -- and my memory of it is almost non-existent. Sadly, I don't think I even own a copy, although I do recall that I was very proud of that game in that I think it broke new ground in the hobby. Everything in the game was based on the realities of WWII combat that I had learned from interviewing the veterans in the process of writing my book "Beyond the Beachhead." The combat they described to me I tried to represent in the game.

As far as step losses in the game vis a vis physical losses in battle, I would say that the representation of step losses had more to do with ruptured cohesion than physical loss. There is no question that one thing I learned from the veterans was that even a full-strength unit with poor cohesion could do almost nothing, whereas a highly depleted unit with good cohesion could accomplish a lot. My only guideline for your question is that a unit losing one step in the game certainly would not have lost 33% of its men. It could have lost only one -- say, its CO -- and it would probably have lost a third of its effectiveness.

I have found as I continue to write about WWII that a loss of 30 men (wounded and killed) in a rifle company of 193 men typically was devastating and required the unit to sit tight the following day, absorbing replacements (if any) and generally not taking any offensive action. Even a loss of 5 men could be tough if the combat endured by the unit had been unremitting, day after day.

I am not sure this information is of any help, but I hope it is.

I am curious about the Combat Mission: Battle for Normandy game. If it's realistic enough to reflect some of the real situations portrayed in my book, I would be impressed. My sense is that in a game, players have incentive to move their people around, but in reality soldiers tended to freeze and stay put, especially under cover, if they came under heavy fire. As a gamer going way back, I'm curious how the game tries to reflect things like that. Is it a turn-based game or a continuous action game?

The situations depicted in "Beyond the Beachhead" are told in some detail, but I wish I had had the page space to tell them in even greater detail. In my later books on the 29th Division (see my website: http://www.angelfire.com/md/29division/), I do tell of company-level actions in greater detail than in the original book.

---

I sent him a link to the "Features" page here so he could discover more about CMBN.

Back to my question: This is a gross abstraction on my part, but (based on Joe's rifle company example) it sounds fair to say that a unit would certainly be combat ineffective after 15% casualties. So, I'd say a 3-step unit in the operational game should take about 5% strength loss for each hit; a 2-step unit should take 8% per hit; and a 1-step unit is knocked out with one hit.

That would at least allow units entering a CMBN battle to be quantified for scenario-building purposes -- starting with their known strengths on D-Day and applying any step losses/gains in the campaign to that point. Then, based on the CMBN battle result, any losses above a certain threshold would mean the unit resumed the campaign with one or two step losses.

Your thoughts?

[tdogg]

I like the Idea of the St. lo game having solitare. These Operational campaign ideas usually center around multiplayer to make it happen which is fine, but I like the idea of a solitare system to play at your leasure. On the cmbn side it doesn't seem solitare play for QBs is well suited due to the AI scripting and no quick map generator ala cmx1. It would be cool if the whole thing could be run solitare both opeational and tactical.