Thoughts on Real Time and the Empty Battlefield.

[Franko]

I've been designing scenarios and I'm hoping to release a few in the coming weeks. It's been fun, and I keep tweaking maps, OBs, etc. However, during play testing I did something by accident when trying to test: I set a real time reinforced company-sized engagement, for a two hour duration. I had previously tested a one hour version in WEGO. I discovered that the real time engagement was far more realistic and fun, a more closely reflected the tempo of the actual battle it was based on, according to first-hand accounts. I found that my troops had time to rest a bit more, they could wait to be reinforced, they could be more careful on attack, there were large periods of realistic-feeling inactivity, etc. In sum, I felt like a real company commander who had some time to make decisions. Also, I noted in my research that the battlefield was far more empty than the OB initially suggested, leaving lots more maneuver room.

So the big question, should scenarios perhaps be longer and be specifically tailored for real-time if that's your cup of tea? I typically think time limits should be expanded when real-time scenarios are designed. Real life battles in the period had a lot of waiting around time, and the battlefield was more "empty" than is typically depicted in some of the scenario designs Ive been seeing. You wouldn't want to rush to get your men killed, and real life engagements tended to be longer than an "hour". I found that fighting a company engagement over two hours in real-time or so truly enjoyable under this game system. But two hours in WEGO would be tedious as hell. Thoughts?

[StellarRat]

I always set a one hour minimum on QBs. Even that seems rushed at times.

[YankeeDog]

I would LOVE to play battles like this. I completely agree with your comments about the potential for additional realism that comes in with RT play, at least with regard to moderately-sized scenarios so that it remains about quick tactical-thinking, and not quick finger-clicking. Of course, to get this effect you also have to commit to not using the pause button other than for bathroom breaks and running to the fridge for another beer. (Yes, I know real world company commander's don't have a pause button for potty breaks or cocktail hour. But that's beyond the limit of my desired level of realism.)

However, as I have noted in other threads, I don't really play RT right now, and the primary reason is the lack of any replay feature. I don't mind having to make rushed tactical decisions on the basis of partial information, missing certain elements of the action, having to move forward on the basis of a semi-educated as to why the tank on my left flank is suddenly burning, etc, as long as I can go back after it's all over, rewind, and see what I missed.

So... once BFC gets a rewind feature in RT, I'm there. Until then, I'll stick with WEGO.

As a side note, I also think it's worth mentioning that even playing WEGO, the more I play CMx2, the slower the pace of my tactics, and the fewer orders I issue per turn; I find that, in general, my tactics are far more successful this way.

[Tux]

I play with 2 hour limits as standard in QBs. Unless you're role-playing a peculiar circumstance in which a lesser time-limit is for some reason realistic I don't see any need to artificially limit the action. What's realistic about everyone suddenly ceasing-fire and shuffling back to their lines after an arbitrary hour's worth of combat has elapsed?

In RT I think time limits are even more meaningless. They should only be used when there is a genuine contextual need for the mission to be completed in that time, imho. IME that is rarely the case.

[James Crowley]

I agree that time limits on most scenarios are both unnecessary and cause players to rush and rack-up unrealistic and a-historic casualty levels.

I don't play real time, for the same reasons as YankeeDog, but I think having no, or at least the maximum, time limit would be the way to go.

If this helps to reduce the slightly ridiculous trend towards 'fighting to the last man', which is something I have seen in pretty much every head-to head that I have played, then I am all for it.

[YankeeDog]

I play with 2 hour limits as standard in QBs. Unless you're role-playing a peculiar circumstance in which a lesser time-limit is for some reason realistic I don't see any need to artificially limit the action. What's realistic about everyone suddenly ceasing-fire and shuffling back to their lines after an arbitrary hour's worth of combat has elapsed?

In RT I think time limits are even more meaningless. They should only be used when there is a genuine contextual need for the mission to be completed in that time, imho. IME that is rarely the case.

Time pressures and schedules are a very real part of military operations. It's completely reasonable for a scenario designer to enforce a time limit on the action of a specific scenario as part of the tactical challenge. In fact, I would argue that it's usually NOT realistic for a player to expect sufficient time to accomplish a given tactical objective without time pressure being a consideration. More often than not, tactical situations happen under time pressure, and tactical commanders often do have to make very difficult choices between maintaining operational tempo and risking higher casualties -- the faster you secure an objective, the more difficult it is for enemy to react and adjust, which may result in greater gains (or less casualties) further on.

For example: If Task Force Raff can't make it through the roadblock a few km West of the Utah beachhead in about 45 minutes, then their timetable to get to the glider landing zones and secure them by nightfall is in jeopardy. It doesn't take much imagination (or reading of military history) to come up with others.

Ultimately, CM's time limits are the designer's way of saying, "After x amount of time, something else happens that affects the bigger picture."

However, this doesn't necessarily mean that I think time limits in CM (whether you're talking about any given scenario or just generally) are necessarily realistic and similar to "Real World" conditions. Wargames in general have a tendency toward time compression, because this can make the action more exciting, and CM is no exception. CMx1 certainly exhibited a lot of time compression. Much more happened in the typical 30-45 minute CMx1 scenario than happened in comparable real life tactical situations.

I think CMx2 also exhibits some degree of time compression, though IMHO not as much as CMx1, and in CMx2 I think the amount of time compression is much more dependent on how the scenario designer structures things -- In CMx2, if the designer wants to, he can create conditions that result in a much more realistic tempo of engagement. In fact, I think some of the issues with time limits in CMBN have to do with the fact that some scenario designers set objectives and time limits based on prior experience building scenarios for CMx1 games, and CMx2 is really a very different game that plays at a very different tempo, even if you stick to WEGO.

One thing I would like to see is variable limits based on point awards, rather than a random variation in end time. For example, it would be great if you could set it so that the Defender got 10 points for every minute he maintained control of the objective beyond 30 minutes, or something like that. This would be a way of establishing realistic time pressures that would be less arbitrary than a simple set time limit.

Regards,

YD

[Franko]

@Yankee:

I agree. You don't have infinite time to do things, but careful thought needs to go into time limits, especially for real time players. Real life commanders can only do so much, too, and are limited by how much they can control in time and space. In the scenario I was designing, the real engagement took about hours. The Germans did not accomplish their objectives in that time frame, and disengaged. I inadvertently tried it, in Real Time, and damned if it did not come out pretty much like the real battle. If you've seen a few tanks get destroyed and other cool stuff playing WEGO, and you rewind stuff frequently, awesome. But if you want a true simulation, RT, with proper time limits, appears to be the way to go. Further, the battlefield in scenarios should be emptier, and not as cluttered with units, unless their is some historical basis for it.

Basically, you shouldn't be seeing that many enemy soldiers. WW2 battlefields are deadly places, interrupted with severe bouts of violence. I think more faithful designs with that in mind can make RT games more interesting to those of us who have previously avoided them.

[Vergeltungswaffe]

Some people want to get to the shooting quickly. Not I. Slow, painstaking recon is pure joy to me.

I remain firmly in the WEGO camp since BO came out through SF and BN, but I understand the immersion of RT, especially in longer battles.

So +1 for lots of empty space and 2 hours, RT or WEGO. No tedium for me.

[Franko]

Some people want to get to the shooting quickly. Not I. Slow, painstaking recon is pure joy to me.

I remain firmly in the WEGO camp since BO came out through SF and BN, but I understand the immersion of RT, especially in longer battles.

So +1 for lots of empty space and 2 hours, RT or WEGO. No tedium for me.

Exactly. The time pressure is still there, believe me.

[Franko]

Another way of putting it..each "scenario" should be viewed as a complete war-game into itself. Sorry if I'm getting too conceptual, but I think new ways to think about these things may make for more consistently enjoyable scenarios.

[SelfLoadingRifle]

For the record, I always add time to a scenario if I feel that the designer is being unrealistic, e.g. giving 40 minutes to take a village (in real-life it can take much longer to secure a single building).

Real time works best for my at up to company sized engagements. For anything bigger, I find it all gets a bit unwieldy and overall command and control becomes affected. For the larger battles - more than one company upwards, personally, I find WEGO is the only way to go.

I hope this helps.

SLR

[Chris Ferrous]

I agree with all that's been said here.

I did start a discussion quite early on to try to assess whether different time limits were needed for RT and We-Go, but there was little meaningful feedback at the time.

I'm currently working on the principle that RT needs one and a half times more minutes than We-Go does, and that CM2 'does things' about twice as fast as real life, as opposed to CM1 when things could get done about 5x faster than reality.

So, when I finally get around to releasing any custom scenarios there'll be two versions; RT and We-Go, plus in all probability HvH, and AI versions for each side. That's six versions all told!

[Steiner14]

Time pressures and schedules are a very real part of military operations.

...

For example: If Task Force Raff can't make it through the roadblock a few km West of the Utah beachhead in about 45 minutes, then their timetable to get to the glider landing zones and secure them by nightfall is in jeopardy.

I think this can't be generalized. You mention a very extreme example,where the success of an operation is built on the sucess in a small window of opportunity and/or the following operation needs a certain problem to be solved first.

Under such circumstances commanders know, that time is more precious than preserving power and saving blood (i.e. after the breakthrough of defensive positions, other units flow through the gap, while the units that broke the gap up, are not immeadiately needed for the following operation).

But most battles are about achieving a goal with an acceptable amount of own losses (nation specific) since the war continues and therefore the units will be needed again.

It was normal, that unit formations had to wait for others, if the neighbour was not capable to advance as fast as planned.

Therefore it would be a step forward, if scenario designers would begin to reflect these things and decide which kind of battle they want to portray:

Although it has gotten slightly better over the years, but normal battles of a war, should be reflecting with the allowed losses, that they are only single steps during a whole war - sadly they are still very rare (so far i haven't found one for CMBN yet).

Instead of balanced battles we would need much more of highly unbalanced battles but with much stricter levels of acceptable losses for the stronger side, to achieve a victory. We still mostly have the kind of balanced massacres under time pressure. i.e. losing one out of three tanks (30%!), still is no problem on the way to an "absolute victory".

Therefore i would be very happy, to see much more unbalanced scenarios, but therefore giving the attacker the time he realistically needs, but reduce the thresholds of acceptable losses of the stronger force for a success.

Another positive side effect would be, that real world tactics would become necessary: You have arty? Then you will have to wait the five minutes, otherwise your losses will make you simply not reach your targets!

You have HMGs? Then you will need to take the ten minutes, until they have taken the best position for supporting crossfire!

Ofcourse such realistic scenarios also need excellent briefings, where the player gets unmistakebly informed, what kind of losses are acceptable and what not!

Why ot offering scenarios in two different versions? One for fun and one for accuracy.

[Steiner14]

What would be very helpful for the acceptance of unbalanced battles, would be a briefing text after the battle, where the designer explains, why a certain threshold was vital and why missing it caused a worse result.

[YankeeDog]

@Steiner:

Overall, I agree with you. While there were CM-size battles that took place where the objective was so important that either or both sides were willing to wreck entire companies or even battalions to achieve their goals, this was really the exception to the rule, and casualties of 30% or higher on the scale and time frame of a typical CM scenario was usually a major problem at the least, if not a disaster.

But time is almost always a factor, at least to a degree. Even if there isn't an objective such as a glider landing zone to secure by nightfall, and the Company or Battalion commander has no particular deadline to achieve a certain limited goal like gaining control of a hill or a small town, the longer the attack takes, the more time the defender has to react. After all, the battle we see at the CM scale is part of a larger conflict, and what happens at the lower level, and how quickly it happens, affects things at the higher levels.

If a Company-level attack takes two hours to achieve its objectives instead of one, maybe defensive reserves have time to move up. Or the defender has time to establish a second defensive line behind the first, rendering the gains of the attack substantially less useful. Or perhaps the delay means the defender has time to re-assign or move artillery assets to deal with the attack -- This last one is very relevant to the CM scale; the more time the attacker spends dicking around in front of the defender's MLR, the more likely it is that the defender is going to be able to bring significant artillery assets to bear.

Of course, if the attack stalls, higher level commanders on the attacking side may also reinforce the attack. But really, this is a success for the defending commander -- the more he ties down the attacker in his sector, the less forces the attacker has available to apply to other sectors, or to follow up the initial attack with a breakthrough attempt.

But in any event, I think we largely agree. Generally speaking, for most tactical situations, to create a more realistic tempo in CM scenarios, the scoring system should give both sides a strong incentive for force preservation (e.g., keep your casualties <20%, get x points). Similarly, the point value of the terrain objectives should be limited. It should be very possible for the attacker to take most or even all of the objectives, but still lose the battle due to unacceptably high casualties. Similarly, a defender should be able to hold on to most of the objectives, but still lose the points calculation if his losses are too high. There are many scenarios out there already for CMBN that do this pretty well.

Usually, the above scoring conditions virtually force a longer battle, since both sides have a strong incentive more cautious with their forces. So this should be reflected in the time limit for the scenario. However, shorter scenarios are still certainly possible under these restrictions; the objectives just have to be appropriately limited.

Regards,

YD

Edit to add: I also agree that the option for post-scenario briefings would be a great addition to the game.

[Vark]

I remember a series of CMBB scenarios by DAF, assaulting a typical Russian battalion position, which had a time limit of 90 minutes, not the usual 40 mins. Transformed the whole scenario, infantry could carefully advance and scout and the AG's could take their time when supporting the infantry. There were time constraints and the attendant pressure but a real plan could be executed, not using a quarter of your allotted time just moving them into position!

[Broadsword56]

[quote=YankeeDog;1304243 Generally speaking, for most tactical situations, to create a more realistic tempo in CM scenarios, the scoring system should give both sides a strong incentive for force preservation (e.g., keep your casualties <20%, get x points)...Usually, the above scoring conditions virtually force a longer battle, since both sides have a strong incentive more cautious with their forces. So this should be reflected in the time limit for the scenario. However, shorter scenarios are still certainly possible under these restrictions; the objectives just have to be appropriately limited.

[FragerZ]

So I didn't read all of the posts here, but I did read Chris Ferrouses post where he says he will release two versions of his scenarios. I really don't think that's needed, because whenever I play H2H games live, I simply go in to all of the scenarios and add 20 or so minutes. You don't need to release two versions - just tell people to add a certain amount of time.

I've played around a dozen live H2H games and whenever I play QB's, we always give it 2 hours. We play small sized forces on medium sized maps with maximum time. Especially given some of the command delay for the joining player, it balances out.

[bodkin]

In my experience scenarios with strict casualty limits are the least enjoyable and the most frustrating to play, particularly for WEGO players who have to watch troops run into know minefields or artillery barrages etc. The engine just isn't refined enough nor offer the fidelity of control to have too strict limits, your always going to lose troops e.g. because an action spot put some of your men in less than favourable position or enter a house from the side where the enemy is waiting.

I don't want to play scenarios that become a tedious exercise in micro-management of waypoints. Scenarios in CMBN should offer some tactical challenge whilst being flexible enough for the player - using reaonably sound tactics - to be able to get a victory without having to save after every move so they can reload if things go wrong. Having too tight casualty thresholds can easily lead to the later.

[Franko]

Great Post Broadsword: worth printing out and keeping. Thats the sort of thinking that leads to discussions which result in overall improvement to scenario quality.

[Ryujin]

About the time limits, it'd be nice if there was a "time objective" or time modifier to certain objectives.

So in this way you could make elements time sensitive without the battle ending because you ran out of time 10 minutes away from capturing your objective (which seem kind of silly, completely failing because you were a little late). The scenario designer can then say that the objective should be captured in 50 minutes (for max points) with you having until 90 minutes before you lose all points for the time objective (as they tick down every minute after the target time), while keeping the scenario at 2 hours or such.

It also let the designer appropriately weight the value of taking an objective on time and how quickly the objective value will lose points for every minute past the target time. So you can have a pretty hard deadline or a more forgiving "sooner is better" objective.

[Steiner14]

Ryujin,

what a very interesting idea.

Time right now is binary - reached or missed. Maybe a simple time-weighting-modifier, that defines the impact of time would be the most comfortable thing for scenario designers and very easy to implement?

It could be implemented as a simple equation.

In the case of a proportional influnce of time on final points it could look like

FinalPoints==FinalPoints + FinalPoints*k*TimeDifference equation.

Where k is a negative factor and reflects the impact of every minute in percentage on the overall achieved points.

TimeDifference is the difference of time between the really needed time of the finished battle and the target time (i.e. if the battle ends at 32 instead of 30 minutes, then DeltaNeededTime would be 2).

For example a k-modifier of -1% (-0,01) would mean, that every minute that takes longer than the target time, the final points of the attacker are reduced 1%. That would mean, if he needs 10 minutes longer, he loses 10% on the final score.

As option the defender's score could stay uninfluenced from the time-modifier.

Such a system could also be used to add points, if the target is reached earlier.

If time limit should not be weighted on the result at all (current system), the scenario designer simply would choose 0% for the modifier.

A slight impact of time would be modelled with modifier below 1%, while still maintaining some pressure for not playing eternal.

Ofcourse this would be the most simple implementation. A more sophisticated implementation could allow the designers to choose different time-modifiers depending on the over- or undertime (i.e. +1-10 minutes -0,5% per minute, while 1-3 minutes faster would be honored with +1% per minute).