Combat Mission unrealistic

[Blackcat]

In the real world I speculate a commander may tell a platoon lieutenant "Go over that hill on the eastern side, keeping within the tree cover then advance towards the village staying within the treeline and stop dead on contact and await further developments making sure to act in concert with other troops as they advance over/around the hill towards the village".

Speculate away, old chap, but in my service I would have looked on any officer who gave me such an order as an idiot and treated him and his order accordingly. The order you speculate as being realistic isn't.

[Fetchez la Vache]

Funnily enough I've got CMSF. Funnily enough I've hardly played it. :-)

[LukeFF]

LukeFF et fils: that you are thoroughly convinced by a straw-man argument I never tried to propound serves only to demonstrate the worth of your 30 second tweet.

gibsonm and I have both been in the military and have been on the battlefield. I looked at plenty of military maps during my service and spent plenty of time being briefed for operations. In short, I've been there. You? You seem to be good at using Latin in your replies. Anything else you got?

And again, it's not like France was some sort of far-off foreign land where no one had ever fought before. I believe there were some skirmishes fought there from 1914-1918, right? Battle of France? Aerial recon conducted in the intervening years between the fall of France and the beginning of Overlord?

[poesel]

I remember playing the Battle of Austerlitz a long time ago on the C64. It was turn based and 3D(!)(static, of course). The relistic difficulty level restricted your view to, for example, what Napoleon actually saw from his current point of view. If you wanted to see something else you had him RIDE there. IIRC there was not enough time to see every point of the front line more than twice even if you rode all day. Messages from other parts of the battlefield also came by horse messenger. I remember being in the south and doing quite well and then receive the message that this f***wit of a general in the north had decided to retreat without order 2 HOURS AGO!. I lost the battle, of course.

All this being sad: a game might be unrealistic in some details and cut some corners but its a game and it needs to be fun. I want to play it - not the computer. I want to push my pixeltruppen (love this word) around and see whats happening to them even if they are all killed and noone could have told the commander their tale.

For the fully realistic setting you are fortunatly born too late.

[Sergei]

Sergei: or how about this? You do not tell the platoon to go over the hill into an unknown landscape until it has been scouted.

It is scouted by a half squad or sniper who IS told to advance over the eastern shoulder of the hill until they make contact or reach a point a few metres beyond what is currently known. In the event that they end their move surrounded by impenetrable forrest through which they cannot see more than 30 odd metres. Repeat. Obviating the technical fault with this idea (and need for major game core rework) you drew attention to?

How does this information acquired by an isolated sniper help anyone else in the force? Or would the map data be instantly shared between all friendlies? Somehow this doesn't sound any more realistic...

[LJFHutch]

The biggest problem is that a real commander wouldn't have to manage squads and teams, he might send a platoon to flank etc and the platoon leader would take it from there, in CM that still isn't possible: you have to move your guys.

Can you imagine not being able to see anything beyond a wall? You send a squad to the edge and rotate them to see where you're going, then you order the next move, then the next. You'd have to micro every unit under your command 90% of the time. Until you can tell an entire platoon to "attack the hill" and have them do it intelligently I can't see how this could ever create anything but confusion and frustration.

And lets say you could do that, then what? It wouldn't really be Combat Mission anymore that's for sure.

[pawter]

Sergei: instantly shared consistent with the rest of the game. It is not some abstract goal of "realism" in this respect that I'm finding fault with but rather the overconcentration of attacking forces. It is the overconcentrated execution of attacks I think is ahistorical. One of the causes for this I think is the advanced perfect knowledge of every 10 square metres of forest, the path of every river and road etc.

Magpie Oz: thanks for your input, prompting me to step back from my argument. Of course the perfect map knowledge is actually to make manifest at the game commander level the on-the-ground process of discovery and common sense decision making of subordinate commanders and units. Then where does that leave us?

Without having been directly observed the entire map, accurate to a few metres is available from the get go to an attacker (or ME participant). If this is one of the causes for the defect I describe then perhaps it truly is insoluble for this game system. My respect for the originators of CM is such that I presume this problem has been considered before and the best feasible result is what we’ve got.

LukeFF: still missing the point my dear friend. Wait a while and it may come round again.

[Magpie_Oz]

I do not really understand what the insoluble problem actually is.

You seem to be saying that because we can see the entire battlefield we are able to unrealistically concentrate our forces?

I'd suggest that the notion of a blacked out map will not really achieve a hell of a lot. He's the thing, the map is blacked out so you advance with scouts ahead, the scouts see the ground ahead and the map is revealed so you stay disengaged and redeploy your forces for the attack, so in reality you end up at the same place you would have anyway but have used a few extra turns to get there.

We kinda do this anyway it is just that we are looking for the enemy not the ground which is wholly consistent with knowing what is ahead from your map but not knowing the enemy dispositions which is pretty much how things play out in reality.

Revealing unknown ground is a wholly different military task and not really what the CM series is about, unless Battlefront decide to model Topographic Survey and Survellience Units. Not sure how well that one will sell

LukeFF: still missing the point my dear friend. Wait a while and it may come round again.

You may wish to reconsider this approach

[Fetchez la Vache]

I have to disagree abou the map knowledge causing troop concentration.

I think it's a combination of: perfect coordination of troops; no decision delays for the commander/player; and overall because the commander/player is more willing to gamble on a single push because it's a game.

If you're playing someone who you suspect is going to try a "tank rush", why not create a purposely weak spot and set up a kill zone behind your forward positions. That would be pretty historical in itself wouldn't it?

[Magpie_Oz]

If you're playing someone who you suspect is going to try a "tank rush", why not create a purposely weak spot and set up a kill zone behind your forward positions. That would be pretty historical in itself wouldn't it?

I am reminded of the Afrika Korps AT gun trap.

[Wodin]

There is a fair difference between whats realistic and what would be entertaining...I feel CMSF has the best balance yet in Iron man mode....CMBN will be far more realistic using that difficulty mode than anything else out there....

Maybe some kind of text game or spreadhseet style game might be the way to go for pure realism...not sure how it would be implemented but I imagine it could be done...take a look at a sci fi 4x free game called Aurora...shows what can be done with spreadsheets and minimal graphics...

Leave the actual scene to your imagination like the old text adventure games did...

[Barticus]

Pawter, I understand the point you are trying to make. In my opinion, most scenarios have too many troops squeezed into too small an area, but that is a matter of both personal preference as well as scenario design. The chief problem I have with your argument is this; even if we assume that Battlefront wrote your perfect game, who else would buy it? In the end Battlefront is a company that is already supplying an admittedly tiny niche market. I would go so far as to say that without the Internet as a whole Battlefront might not be able to exist at all. For my money's worth, the current incarnation of the Shock Force series, of which CMBN is the next iteration, satisfies my tactical squad level gaming itch quite nicely. To make it any more complex would have an adverse effect on my inclination to play it.

Again, that is a matter of personal preference.

B

[AslakH]

It's a game, brah.

Chillax.

[Fredrock1957]

How does this information acquired by an isolated sniper help anyone else in the force? Or would the map data be instantly shared between all friendlies? Somehow this doesn't sound any more realistic...

The snipers snaps a picture on his iphone and sends to his commander and buddies... The enemy then isolates the sniper via his GPS and sends in 45 rds of 81mm...

There is always going to be realistic issues with any computer based game. This discussion is great in that it might spark an idea for future releases 5-10 years from now... but then technology changes all the time. Personally I like the idea of having a fairly true representation of the landscape and terrain for the size fights that CM:BN is slated for... As a designer there are many things at your fingertips to give some 'false or questionable recon'..

I am not sure who posted it but the change of trenches from the CM:SF (embedded in terrain) to the CM:BN new method will vastly improve some of the recon questions/comments being discussed...

I still say "lets get the game in our hands, play, design, enjoy" and then we will have better abilities to isolate potential changes for the future...

[MikeyD]

The game is like a toaster. It makes toast just fine. It not really the toaster's fault if you're getting electric shocks from sticking a fork into it and wiggiling it about, or if you're not having success cooking a ham sandwich in it. Every so often a 'game is fatally flawed' post pops up (at this point from people guaranteed to have never played it). Often enough, if you map out the changes needed to conform to the complainers vision of an 'optimal' game the result is a muddy mess. Balanced but realistic, limited terrain intel but the with a terrain grid mapping every undulation, draconian chain of command procedures but with individual initiative built in.

[AslakH]

I want to jump on the "fataly flawed" band wagon!

That way I'll be positively supprised when I play it the first time.

Also, more drama if I say it's broken.

It's a game. It can't make you dinner, nor can it have your babies. FLAWED.

[pawter]

WARNING: this will take a long while to read.

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=95951

Apart from the purely aesthetic appreciation of those trolls who were unconvinced of my IQ, dog latin or size of my codpiece there were some valid points and opinions expressed I think. I am mulling them over.

Though the initial frenzy seemed more related to the title of the thread and the desperate defensiveness of the advocates for CMSF ... surely as a professional advocate you must sense some tactical flaw belies their pleading? I hope this isn't a foretaste of what we can anticipate from CMBN and it's new acolytes. It seems to me it may be a manifestation of the doomsday dogmatism of some millennial cult on the verge of apotheosis rather than the vibrant collegiate contest of searching opinions I fondly remember from back in the days of CMBO yore.

Jeez I've not had this much virtual fun since I spewed on my wife's grandmother!

[BloodyBucket]

Let me start out by saying I'm unconvinced that a "realistic" representation of WWII tactical C3 and forcing the player to rely on the chain of command would result in an enjoyable game or eliminate gamey tactics at all.

I'm going to defend the OP against some of the modern military types who are suggesting that an almost complete lack of terrain knowledge and intel on enemy forces was unlikely in WWII. We live in a world of instant communication, where GPS and satellite imagery are taken for granted, and most developed countries would view the casualties from a battle like Tarawa as a national catastrophe.

WWII was fought on a titanic scale where a lot of the leadership were "90 day wonders", radios were lacking or dodgy and the idea using lives to lubricate the gears of the big machine wasn't as repulsive as it is now.

As was posted earlier...

"So we are trying to replicate a world where the commander:

- doesn't have a map;

- hasn't been given any aerial reconnaissance photos;

- hasn't spoken to any of the locals;

- hasn't sent out any of his own reconnaissance to tell him what the ground is like beyond what he can actually see, and

- hasn't got a set of binoculars to look for himself."

I'd say that a lot of the time most of the above was true for a company commander. His map probably lacked details, he rarely if ever saw any aerial recon photos, the locals were either not forthcoming, untrusted, absent, limited by language problems or could give information that was of questionable value anyway.

The info he got from patrols was limited to what the patrols could see and hear, and was subject to human error and basic fear, and personal recon even with binoculars gives only so much information depending on the terrain and the presence of the enemy.

My father, a WWII infantry vet, told me that they got a Division intel officer to come check out reports that were being made of German activity in his sector. The guy showed up clean and shined with a tie. When he said doubtfully that he heard and saw nothing at the Company HQ, he was told that patrols were making these observations, and he should accompany one.

This involved a night time river crossing in a small boat, since daylight crossings were too dangerous. When they got to the opposite shore and went a few yards into the woods he told the patrol he'd seen enough, and didn't listen when the men of the patrol (he outranked them all) insisted that the German positions were still some ways off. When he got back to Division he reported that the men in that sector were jumpy and probably overestimating German activity. This was the 28th Division in the Ardennes in early December of 1944.

I don't think every staff officer was incompetent or more concerned about his own skin than acquiring information, but I do think this sort of stuff was fairly common. The vast draftee armies of the time were quickly raised and trained, and would probably seem somewhat strange to the highly trained, high tech volunteer soldiers of today.

[Zatoichi]

Sometimes it's not what you say, but the way you say it.

Just saying.

[user38]

I have to agree with poesel71 and Wodin here.

A game is a game and it is supposed to be fun. Real life is not fun, except in retrospect. On the other hand, I have to disagree with MickeyD:

The game is like a toaster. It makes toast just fine.

Toasters are actually crap at making toast. I recommend that anyone who is interested in quality toast throw away their toaster and use the grill instead.

[Barkhorn1x]

Sometimes it's not what you say, but the way you say it.

Just saying.

Indeed, the title of the OP is; "Combat Mission unrealistic" He didn't bother to even use an ? or write "IMO" for gods sake.

So...Combat Mission unrealistic is an objective given.

OOOOOKKKKK.

[Rocky Balboa]

I have to agree with poesel71 and Wodin here.

A game is a game and it is supposed to be fun. Real life is not fun, except in retrospect. On the other hand, I have to disagree with MickeyD:

Toasters are actually crap at making toast. I recommend that anyone who is interested in quality toast throw away their toaster and use the grill instead.

That's your opinion dude, my toaster makes toast just fine, nothing needs to be changed. Just because you think only real toast must have grill marks on it doesn't mean my toaster is fatally flawed. I can make toast in a minute, how long would it take for you to make toast on a grill? In addition you've got to stand there and watch your toast just to make sure it doesn't burn, How is that fun? Leave my toast alone thank you very much.

[Zatoichi]

Toasters? Grills?

Blasphemy!

The One True Toast is only achievable using an open fire and a long fork.

In my opinion.

[Mord]

I hope this isn't a foretaste of what we can anticipate from CMBN and it's new acolytes. It seems to me it may be a manifestation of the doomsday dogmatism of some millennial cult on the verge of apotheosis rather than the vibrant collegiate contest of searching opinions I fondly remember from back in the days of CMBO yore.

Ahhhh YES...those magical glory days of the forums...way back when the world was made of cotton candy and every member held the others hand in perfect harmony and there was nary a post raised in anger and every one was polite and civil and totally agreed on all aspects of Comabt Mission...Now, the boards are just trolls and BFC suck ups...Since the release of (The Dreaded NOT WWII) CMSF none of us here have ever raised any issues about the game, it's design or where it was. We've all spent the last 4 years seeing how we could drive the well bred, civilized, sophisticates from our presence.

Thanks for setting us all straight. Your superiority has been noted.

Jeez I've not had this much virtual fun since I spewed on my wife's grandmother!

Kinky. Were her teeth in or out?

Got any pics?

Mord.

[LongLeftFlank]

Wow, quite a hornet's nest here. In the time it takes to read a page of this thread another is tacked on. Truly the schwerpunkt of the Forum, ja?

The original point (not the ill-chosen thread title) about it being too easy to concentrate and coordinate forces is a very good one IMHO. When you as commander send troops cross-country, you can't truly control when they arrive. Layer onto that dense vegetation, night, poor weather (lots of foggy morning attacks) and above all the disorienting effects of fear as well as C3 stuff-ups and there's no wonder you need 3:1 odds to get an attack done!

That said, all these problems are well within the span of control of a good designer, e.g. Lots of mortar fire raining down on likely concentration points, lots of snipers to break up the timing of any cross-country advance, wire entanglements and mines in hidden draws, wstrongpoints that are hard to reduce or suppress using overwatch fires alone.

CMSF has all the tools to create highly realistic scenarios that incent realistic behaviour. And from what I've seen to dare, CMBN does the same and then some. Give us some form of crude coplay and I will be in game Nirvana.