Wanted: Tips for Managing Large Scenarios

[Lt. Smash]

I love CMBN but a lot of the fun gets lost on me when the scenario gets big. To me, "big" are anything close to battalion-size. These are generally "Large" or "Huge" scenarios in CMBN parlance. Too many units, too much going on, too much time, etc. all contribute to too little enjoyment.

I want to change and I need your help. I want to find fun in these bigger battles. I have to be missing something. So, that leads me to the title of my post:

What are your tips for managing large scenarios?

Bob

[womble]

Speaking purely from a WeGo perspective...

I reckon the first thing you need to do is recognise that the fun in large scenarios is what happens each turn, not the ending/victory/climax/culmination. Given that the proportion of time spent on getting there to that spent finishing is so lop-sided, it's always going to feel unfulfilling if you're concentrating on the arrival rather than the journey. While it might take 3 times as long to manage 3 Companies as opposed to 1, think of it as three company sized games running in parallel where you only process the turns once they're all ready. Add the fact that they're not parallel, but linked and you've got a higher degree of flexibility and emergent complexity.

I'm a micromanager. I split pretty much every squad up right at the start, and I like the big battles because it seems like a grander sweep, and I'm more likely to have all the elements of combined arms to play with in sufficient quantity that if I make a small mistake or get unlucky I can recover from it.

To me, it doesn't matter whether, in 100 hours /played, I finish 10 tiny half hour scenarios or 2 huge 2 hour ones. It's still 100 hours of tactical travails. If anything, it's the starting up of a scenario that I find most difficult; once I've got into the initial sparring I know what I'm doing, but before I find that first target, I'm feel a bit like I'm groping in the dark, and if I'm constantly starting scenarios, I'll spend more time in that 'discomfort zone'.

[Michael Emrys]

...but before I find that first target, I'm feel a bit like I'm groping in the dark...

Yeah, I know what you mean. Until I know where the enemy is at, I am apt to be hesitant and uncertain. I'm always concerned that if I am too bold, I might be sending my troops into an ambush where half of them might be obliterated in a turn. But once I know where he is, I can begin to apply tactics to defeat him.

Michael

[womble]

Yeah, I know what you mean. Until I know where the enemy is at, I am apt to be hesitant and uncertain. I'm always concerned that if I am too bold, I might be sending my troops into an ambush where half of them might be obliterated in a turn. But once I know where he is, I can begin to apply tactics to defeat him.

Michael

Precisely. It's sometimes a 'good' uncertainty, because I like scouting, but when the setup area might be in the field of fire of any number of enemy assets, for example, I'm terrified of putting something key in the wrong place...

[vincere]

That's such a key issue for me too. Set up and advance to contact take the most brain power. Tiring for me sometimes

As firefights and the battle develops I'm so much more in my comfort zone.

What helps me in the larger battles is to take little extra time previewing the battle, and start to think more like RL commanders and plan platoon and company objectives and waypoints.

The plan falls apart but it gets me going in a sort of organised way.

[Michael Emrys]

What helps me in the larger battles is to take little extra time previewing the battle, and start to think more like RL commanders and plan platoon and company objectives and waypoints.

The plan falls apart but it gets me going in a sort of organised way.

Yep. For starters, I will spend some time going over the map at ground level looking for covered approaches and trying to guess where the enemy has likely put his troops. The name of the game is getting your troops safely to locations from which they can achieve fire superiority. If you have smoke available, use it to mask your movements if there isn't any terrain that will. And playing against a human player, you can fake him out by putting down a smoke screen to make him think you're moving where you aren't. Let him shift his forces to meet an attack that is actually coming down a different avenue.

Michael

[Erwin]

While it's become clear the CMBN and the CM2 system generally really shines in small intimate battles especially in urban settings, there are reasons why many of us love the large-huge scenarios that were so common in CM1.

Firstly, one of the advantages/features of CM2 - its amazing level of detail - is also its deficit. What I love about large scenarios is that you can have lots of individual action/battles going on simultaneously all over a huge map. You can be defending at one location, attacking at another, and doing recon at a third - all in the same scenario.

A large-scale battle also brings in the element of maneuver. In all the CMBN scenarios and campaigns I have played I do not recall ever having the option of racing a reserve mech task forces around the flank of an enemy. Everything in CMBN is like hitting yourself with a hammer, nearly always frontal assaults with very limited flank maneuver possibilities cos the maps are so small/narrow.

When you have many options on a large-huge map (by CM1 standards), the importance of creating and maintaining a reserve becomes important - something that one rarely needs to do in a typical CMBN scenario. One can enjoy the challenge of committing a fast-moving, hard-hitting reserve formation where needed and having the discipline to create another reserve or bring the first back before it gets attrited by too much action.

So, in answer to the original question, the way to approach a large scenario is as a quantity of small actions that are all coordinated to achieve a greater goal.

[Wego McPbem]

Use plus and minus to cycle through all your units. It's very easy to miss a single unit in need of orders otherwise.

And I agree with people saying the advance to contact is the most intimidating part. Once you know what you're up against and where they are the rest should come naturally.

[vincere]

Yep. For starters, I will spend some time going over the map at ground level looking for covered approaches and trying to guess where the enemy has likely put his troops. The name of the game is getting your troops safely to locations from which they can achieve fire superiority. If you have smoke available, use it to mask your movements if there isn't any terrain that will. And playing against a human player, you can fake him out by putting down a smoke screen to make him think you're moving where you aren't. Let him shift his forces to meet an attack that is actually coming down a different avenue.

Michael

It's been a long time since I played pbem; but yes one of the more exiting aspects against human is the possibility of deception. Managed to pull off a left flank feint to routing ambush in the centre against a much better player. I can still visualise it many years later

I'm with Erwin- larger battles, on large maps, give so many more tactical possibilities.

[womble]

A large-scale battle also brings in the element of maneuver. In all the CMBN scenarios and campaigns I have played I do not recall ever having the option of racing a reserve mech task forces around the flank of an enemy. Everything in CMBN is like hitting yourself with a hammer, nearly always frontal assaults with very limited flank maneuver possibilities cos the maps are so small/narrow.

I have often found that I want and have the opportunity to make dramatic transverse displacements. If you start going up one route as far as you can, it can be profitable to haul your mobile elements out, into the rear and whisk them through safe areas to a new axis of attack.

[Michael Emrys]

I have found that playing on large maps with modest-sized forces (a reinforced company or pair of companies) reintroduces maneuver into the game. With that sized force, I can usually create and maintain a reserve to throw into the battle at the critical time and place if it is needed, even if it is only a single platoon.

Michael

[RockinHarry]

As with all size battles, depends upon assumed initial situation. Is it a "framed" force, as part of a larger occupied frontline or an independent force operating with open flank(s)?

When framed, an attacking (or defending) force can cover a frontline of particular width, which for a cpy sized force could be few hundred meters and for a large Btl. size force between 500 to 1000m (upto X2 and more when defending). So a framed force (with framing forces assumed outside the boundaries of the given map), there´s likely less room for "maneuvering" and no alternative to frontal assaults. If assuming an independent, advance force, maps s/b bigger, allowing more opportunities for maneuvre and requirement to cover "flanks".

Personally I like big, Btl. size engagements on large maps (>= 2x2 km) for the combined arms aspects (infantry + heavy weapons, + artillery, + armor), which is more interesting to me, than pure small tank vs. tank, or infantry vs. infantry battles. All a matter of taste.

Managing big battles is time consuming, but if a scenario designer allows for a long lasting battle (sufficient turns), one can make the most out of it, by playing the battle in phases. A reccon phase, moving to assembly areas phase, assault phase and so one. Thus one can move forces in defined stages, not all at once and contiuously. Thus even a big battle can be played rather quickly, if scenario length allows to make a reasonable attack or defend plan. Biggest time investement then is making the plan, which could take 1 hour or more.

I´ll play mostly with watching the battle (WEGO) at map level 7-9 and switch to 1-3, when frindly unit icons start to blink (taking casualties) and enemy units show up. Repeating the replay then as often as needed to readjust movements ect.

Overall, big battles play fairly well, if you get beyond the time consuming planning phase. Otherwise and when beeing rather impatient, just avoid them.

[Erwin]

I agree with all that was said.

A common problem with the CM2 system scenarios is that just about every game involves the first 2/3 to 3/4 of the game spotting and figuring out where the enemy could be lurking (recon is fun, but uses very few units), then waiting (boring) while one calls in arty to kill em or smoke to disguise movement, followed by an intense last 20%-30% of the scenario when one actually gets to do fun stuff like "the attack" and gain the objectives.

Sometimes, it feels like a (superb) WW1 game. But, it's an example of enhanced "realism" not necessarily creating enhanced enjoyment (for many of us).

It's largely due to the fact that CMBN is much more of an inf game (with a little armor in support). Many of us enjoy armored/maneuver warfare with inf being in support. That may be the essential difference from CM1 in which it was easy for average systems to run pretty large armored scenarios on huge maps.

I am looking forward to future modules which hopefully will open up the terrain and allow for more maneuver. But, I am concerned that with the much larger processing demands of CMBN, that we may still be stuck with relatively small maps and scenarios.

[womble]

Sometimes, it feels like a (superb) WW1 game.

I'm puzzled why you think it's a good WW1 game? How much time did they spend scouting in Flanders? How often do you find yourself attacking linear positions across open ground? I think it's a good WW2 simulation. But I can see that might not be the kind of fun you want or have come to expect.

[Erwin]

Ok, you are correct, CMBN is not a good WW1 simulation.

It's an amazingly wonderful, entertaining and yet frustrating sim that blends amazing detail with features that may or may not work properly, but one can't tell much of the time cos of inadequate documentation leaving so much room for "interpretation." Hence the vast amounts of discussion and opinionating on these forums. (Quite brilliant of the developers to come up with that formula actually.)

And I say all of the above with genuine admiration and affection for the CM series.

[Michael Emrys]

It's largely due to the fact that CMBN is much more of an inf game (with a little armor in support). Many of us enjoy armored/maneuver warfare with inf being in support. That may be the essential difference from CM1 in which it was easy for average systems to run pretty large armored scenarios on huge maps.

I am looking forward to future modules which hopefully will open up the terrain and allow for more maneuver. But, I am concerned that with the much larger processing demands of CMBN, that we may still be stuck with relatively small maps and scenarios.

Lately I've been gravitating towards playing on large, open maps using forces where 1/4 to 1/2 of my total force is armor. The open maps seem to play well enough, as it seems to be trees and hedgerows that slow things down in terms of frame rate. They also can provide opportunities for long range fire, although the ground contour usually does not allow a lot of that.

Michael

[winkelried]

It's largely due to the fact that CMBN is much more of an inf game (with a little armor in support). Many of us enjoy armored/maneuver warfare with inf being in support. That may be the essential difference from CM1 in which it was easy for average systems to run pretty large armored scenarios on huge maps.

I think this depends on the force mix in the scenarios. And remember: the fighting in Normandy was for a long time infantry heavy - just with armor supporting (a US Infantry Division usually had 1 Tank Bn and 1 TD Bn assigned - this means that each Infantry Regiment got 1-2 Tank/TD companies assigned - each Batallion 1-2 Tank Platoons). just operation cobra brought a bit of a change.

[c3k]

I enjoy large battles... but there is a lot of work.

- Think in terms of at least platoon size objectives. Don't try to micromanage every single squad and team. Get the chunks where they can apply pressure, then finesse the little pieces. Yes, I think of them as "chunks" and "crumbs". Depending on the size of the battle and the forces you have, the initial chunks may be companies.

- Using the +/- keys is a great piece of advice. There are usually teams which you may forget about.

- Despite that, I still sometimes miss some cool action. (I'm a WeGoer.) In a recent game I found my Platoon HQ was down to a single enlisted guy. Ooops. I must've lost the other two men somewhere along the way. (They'd been buddy aided out already.) Recognize that you will miss some action. With a battalion in contact, there'll be plenty going on.