Fundamental issues for CM2--what does it want to be?

[DavidFields]

This is important enough, that I am thinking that it should not just be tacked onto a thread about demo charges. I hope you will forgive me, Erwin, for using your post as a starting point.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:

Originally Posted by Erwin

Am starting to consider that CMBN is akin to the ASL cardboard game series whereas CM1, (and even CMSF surprisingly) are more akin to the PanzerBlitz series.

It depends on what level of play one enjoys the most.

[End of Erwin quote]

I agree.

And it really dates you, because PanzerBlitz was before the (?more popular) Panzer Leader.

(Parenthetically, which is why this is in parentheses, I see that CM2 is noted in the Wikipedia entry as a successor to ASL)

Edit: I am going to expand on this. Though I think CMBN is excellent, hence my sig, besides the (to my eye) CMSF ports into WW2, it could risk the ASL issue of uber-complexity. From that era, everyone remembers the multiple die rolls one had to throw for the simplest of tasks--hoping or fearing for snake-eyes. In addition to being in graduate school, one of the reasons I never "got" into ASL was its mind-numbing complexity--this despite me being a chess champion, and someone who still reads math and contract law books for fun. There is an art to picking the right simplifications, and if someone told me CM2 would only be designed for company level actions or below, I would not be against it. The "scope" issue is why I have had problems with the squad splitting. Tripling the number of "counters" to move around, and, all things being equal, one should be dealing at a very much smaller (1/3) size of battle. Get down to individual soldiers, and a "big battle" would be for a single platoon to assault several houses.

Thus, I am going to assert that the success or failure of the CM2 project is not going to be primarily technical/coding, it is going to rest on the wisdom of some very important underlying assumptions. It is early, and the future in not cast.

I am, by the way, incredibly pulling for Battlefront to pull this off.

[Childress]

. The "scope" issue is why I have had problems with the squad splitting. Tripling the number of "counters" to move around, and, all things being equal, one should be dealing at a very much smaller (1/3) size of battle. Get down to individual soldiers, and a "big battle" would be for a single platoon to assault several houses.

Yeah, all the options for squad splitting are great and add a lot of flexibility. But as a player, I prefer not to be compelled to split in order to maximize my chances of victory. The micro managing gets overwhelming particularly when on offense. A bit more of a penalty for slicing up squads perhaps?

[LongLeftFlank]

Like the comparisons between CM and the AH tactical classics. I am a bit unusual in that I started playing SL first (age 14) and only picked up Panzerblitz/Leader in college. I remember at first heaving a sigh of relief over how much easier it was to play... then immediately started to draw "reduced size" units on the flip sides of the counters to make it more granular and SL like.

[GerryCMBB]

Hello:

I never played the CM1 series but I get the impression it was more AFV-oriented. Is that true?

Gerry

[sburke]

I tried panzerblitz and panzerleader, but part of what drove me towards SL/ASL is trying to see how much influence or not an individual can have. The leader counters for me gave a more personal dimension. CMx2 takes it to the next level in that I might not necessarily be able to identify every soldier, I can see them and identify their team leaders. When you get down close and see the individual behavior and the TAC AI it gets downright amazing at times.. . . at least when they aren't doing something goofy.

As to scale, I would agree CM shines at the company level, but I have no issues with going to Battalion level at all. I just go slower with my turns. I have played enough "monster" war games with thousands of pieces that a battalion with split squads doesn't really faze me. Not sure I can speak to CMx1 being more AFV oriented, but CMx2 is for me a much better infantry experience for sure.

I don't understand the idea of a penalty for splitting squads. Why would you penalize someone for using appropriate tactics?

[Childress]

I don't understand the idea of a penalty for splitting squads. Why would you penalize someone for using appropriate tactics?

I wouldn't. But if the correct road to winning demands that a player divide every single squad on the map from minute one on down the game becomes unit management Hell with a force of significant size, especially when attacking. I don't want to play that game. In CMx1 there was, iirc, a morale penalty paid for doing so.

Also, as I understand it, the infantry team as an independent body was an Allied, not a German, concept.

[sburke]

I wouldn't. But if the correct road to winning demands that a player divide every single squad on the map from minute one on down the game becomes unit management Hell with a force of significant size, especially when attacking. I don't want to play that game. In CMx1 there was, iirc, a morale penalty paid for doing so.

Also, as I understand it, the infantry team as an independent body was an Allied, not a German, concept.

ahh okay. yeah I don't divide all immediately, kind of depends on the situation. I do tend to if I am expecting to have to deal with a lot of enemy artillery just to not see an entire squad destroyed at once. If I am not imminently expecting something I won't automatically split squads. If I am moving into contact however, I want more control that the assault command gives so I will split them and have more control about who's moving and who is providing covering fire etc.

[RockinHarry]

Also, as I understand it, the infantry team as an independent body was an Allied, not a German, concept.

Correct, at least from october 1939 (conclusion of poland campaign) onward, in favor of more easy to handle and more powerful squad/platoon tactics. Germans started the war with assault/support team concept though.

[RockinHarry]

ahh okay. yeah I don't divide all immediately, kind of depends on the situation. I do tend to if I am expecting to have to deal with a lot of enemy artillery just to not see an entire squad destroyed at once. If I am not imminently expecting something I won't automatically split squads. If I am moving into contact however, I want more control that the assault command gives so I will split them and have more control about who's moving and who is providing covering fire etc.

An oddity with the assault move command is that the support (LMG) team moves first and at least for german squads this provides a big disadvantage. I think the internal squad structure, at least for german squads is wrong in the game.

[jbmtintin]

An oddity with the assault move command is that the support (LMG) team moves first and at least for german squads this provides a big disadvantage. I think the internal squad structure, at least for german squads is wrong in the game.

I agree with you. But I was one time happy with that! During an assault, the Panzerschrek team (2 guys) was first, and I find that crazy: I knew there was enemies in the house, and I didn't want my AT guys dead. Luckily, when enemies open fire, the Panzerschrek guy just aimed the house, and killed almost everybody without batting an eyelid...

[RockinHarry]

I agree with you. But I was one time happy with that! During an assault, the Panzerschrek team (2 guys) was first, and I find that crazy: I knew there was enemies in the house, and I didn't want my AT guys dead. Luckily, when enemies open fire, the Panzerschrek guy just aimed the house, and killed almost everybody without batting an eyelid...

Yep, sometimes it works to advantage, but more oftentimes not. Off course it much depends on proper application of assault move under right tactical circumstances and it counts the more for AI driven forces, who just execute given scenario plans.

Personally I got away from assault move, both for human and AI forces and prefer to split into teams, for better control and dispersion. As for AI plans I now mainly use quick and max assault. This also gives me a better estimate of plan execution times.

Edit: Has anybody measured assault move bounds yet? Think they are around 40m and I find it very important to know where the forward moving team will stop, before the remaining follows.

[womble]

I wouldn't. But if the correct road to winning demands that a player divide every single squad on the map from minute one on down the game becomes unit management Hell with a force of significant size, especially when attacking. I don't want to play that game. In CMx1 there was, iirc, a morale penalty paid for doing so.

Just for the sake of hanging some numbers on it:

A US Rifle company (all of it, including weapons platoon) will have what? 24? floating icons as it gets dumped on the table by the game (ignoring vehicles). Of those, 9 (the rest are teams) can split into 3, making a total of 42, so splitting every squad actually doesn't quite double the number of 'counters', and a US Rifle company is a worst-case (German squads only split in 2 - their platoon AT assets are already split, in some cases). Whereas if you're playing a small game with a couple of platoons, the US organisation does, indeed, almost triple the number of tokens you need to deal with if you have (and I agree that you do have) to split the squads. Going to a larger formation tends to dilute the effect of splitting squads, as you get a higher proportion of teams in Support and Weapons Companies.

So it's not quite as bad as you think, except that the counters you need to pay the most attention to, overall, tend to be the ones that you split; support weapons don't move as much (at least they have less waypoints) and aren't usually in as much danger.

As I see it, the game is a team-level WeGo game. With the option to play RT and to simplify teams into squads if the scenario involves many troops and it's not critical that they go precisely where they're told. So yes, a company-level game can have as many elements to handle as a "short" Battalion level game in x1. If unit-management hell is your limiter, that does restrict you, if you demand the best performance out of yourself and your pTruppen, to playing engagements with smaller infantry components than whatever size you don't want to get your head round. That might mean you hit the game's limits for you before you hit machine limits.

For my part, I don't care. If my rig will run the map, I'll split the teams. It's not like they take a lot of managing, and most of the time even in a big scenario, there are distinct 'active areas' that, while linked, can be largely addressed separately when considering the specifics of team movement.

Also, as I understand it, the infantry team as an independent body was an Allied, not a German, concept.

True, as others have said, but I fondly imagine that a German squad would have been allowed to spread out a bit more than an 8mx16m box, and would have been permitted to, if it wanted, send a couple of scouts up to the top floor of a building while the rest of the squad set up on a lower floor, or have its Faust-carrying troops be somewhere slightly separate from the rest of the squad (or have a different range on their circular covered arc).

[womble]

Edit: Has anybody measured assault move bounds yet? Think they are around 40m and I find it very important to know where the forward moving team will stop, before the remaining follows.

AIUI, it's "half the distance to the plotted waypoint". But I have hardly used it since futzing about with it in CMSF, so that could have changed.

[RockinHarry]

AIUI, it's "half the distance to the plotted waypoint". But I have hardly used it since futzing about with it in CMSF, so that could have changed.

Hm...ok. I´ll test some if back home tomorrow. I could imagine there´s a limit for bounds, as waypoints plotted far apart would lead to moving elements get exhausted very quickly. Think I also noticed that possible cover is taken into consideration for plotting single bounds, but if effective cover is absent, forward elements would stop at some 40-50m, before covering teams start following. That´s under non actual combat conditions (no enemy units yet sighted or shooting).

[RockinHarry]

True, as others have said, but I fondly imagine that a German squad would have been allowed to spread out a bit more than an 8mx16m box, and would have been permitted to, if it wanted, send a couple of scouts up to the top floor of a building while the rest of the squad set up on a lower floor, or have its Faust-carrying troops be somewhere slightly separate from the rest of the squad (or have a different range on their circular covered arc).

True. "Basic" spread was about 5m each man, but it varies greatly under given conditions. Without naming the countless details about inherent (german) squad tactics, I´d assume it almost impossible to code to have it realistically applied in CMBN.

Human players can mimic this sort of squad tactics with split teams reasonably well, but the AI can´t.

[Childress]

ahh okay. yeah I don't divide all immediately, kind of depends on the situation. I do tend to if I am expecting to have to deal with a lot of enemy artillery just to not see an entire squad destroyed at once. If I am not imminently expecting something I won't automatically split squads. If I am moving into contact however, I want more control that the assault command gives so I will split them and have more control about who's moving and who is providing covering fire etc.

Comments on splitting:

I split squads into base and assault elements when attacking with a single squad but more commonly one or two squads constitute the fire base and an intact squad assaults.

I spin off a scout team- an excellent addition to the game- when moving into the unknown. But I wish there was a way to detach a single man, a commander with binocs, from vehicles.

No problem in splitting squads, even German squads, on defense. If nothing else this simulates the dispersion on a wide front.

One problem with splitting squads is that there's no shorthand way to distinguish the separate elements via icons. To rejoin them one needs to use the +,- keys or jump from one team to another with the mouse.

Splitting in anticipation of barrage makes sense but, depending on the size of one's force, I find this a nuisance.

[Michael Emrys]

@ Rankorian,

Interesting that you bring this up at this time as I was just thinking about these issues and how I feel about them a couple of days ago. I bought all the gamettes in the original SL series—as well as the extra map boards and scenarios—but for me Cresendo of Doom (and what the hell kind of title was that?) was the last one to be fun to play. I never got into ASL at all. For me, GI Anvil of Victory was the writing on the wall. After that, it was all just going down a black hole of very expensive unplayability. Even with COI and COD my opponent and I spent half our playing time searching through the rulebooks to see if something we wanted to do was legal.

Well, CM has not reached that level of unplayability yet, but I do find that it is quite a bit more work for only a marginal increase in pleasure. CMx2 is for me a better work of art than its predecessor, at least a more admirable one. But dang it, it just isn't as much fun. A large part of that is due to the way I experience the two games rather than anything inherent in the games themselves. I've posted about that before and won't repeat here what I said several months ago.

But part of the problem is that in CMx1, my favorite game had me commanding a reinforced battalion, which allowed for some interesting and varied combined arms formations. Such are just too difficult for me to manage in CMx2; and the hassles are a part of what is sucking the fun out of this game. I recognize that others may have a different experience. Some people thrive on monster games; I never cared for them myself. For me, there is a certain optimum size for every game depending on how complex the player's interaction with each counter is. Games with simple rules can get away with more pieces than games with more complex rule sets. In CMBN, I find that a reinforced company is as much as I can handle without the burden of managing the pieces intolerable.

To move off on kind of a tangent, some time ago Steve happened to mention that his favorite kind of game is set at the operational level. This I take to mean that the smallest pieces on the board would be battalions or larger. As it happens, those are my favorite kinds of games as well. I think WW II can best be understood viewed at this level. And I do really wish that BFC would take their game designing skills, which are considerable, and start turning out operational-level games.

But I don't expect to see that happen. For one thing, they do not have the resources to turn out in-house two completely different lines of games, and I do not see them abandoning CM in the foreseeable future for quite a long time, if ever. With CM, BFC is the big fish in a small pond. They fill a niche and are head and shoulders above their competitors. Moving into the operational-level market would see them going head to head with several existing companies that possess a lot of experience in that market. Unless they can enter that market with some kind of mind blowing innovation, they might fine it very rough sailing indeed.

So then, whither CM indeed. Can anything be done to streamline the mechanics without sacrificing hard-won authenticity? Is there a rabbit in that hat?

Michael

[G. Smiley]

...And I do really wish that BFC would take their game designing skills, which are considerable, and start turning out operational-level games...

Oh, that would be wonderful.

[GerryCMBB]

Hello:

It would be really nice if they could add something that makes it easier to see the teams of a squad. Wondering if they could start out with the icons not having a silhouette of a solder but rather numbers for the squad number (1 for squad 1 etc.). Then when you split the squad you would see 1A, 1B, etc.

As someone noted, right now the difficulty of easily finding the squad members makes the micro-management process more challenging.

Gerry

Comments on splitting:

... One problem with splitting squads is that there's no shorthand way to distinguish the separate elements via icons. To rejoin them one needs to use the +,- keys or jump from one team to another with the mouse. ...

[womble]

...in CMx1, my favorite game had me commanding a reinforced battalion, which allowed for some interesting and varied combined arms formations. Such are just too difficult for me to manage in CMx2...

Is the sweet spot so far away though? You can still get some pretty funky setups with the same number of icons as you'd've had in x1, I reckon. Or is it that the game is overall more complex, so even the same number of elements is more trouble than it's worth?

...operational-level games...several existing companies that possess a lot of experience in that market...

Who're we looking at, here? I've got my grand-strategic game, I've got my tactical game. All I need's a good operational game...

So then, whither CM indeed. Can anything be done to streamline the mechanics without sacrificing hard-won authenticity? Is there a rabbit in that hat?

I'm hoping that the interface overhaul will provide a little bunny-titfer* action. Some additional inormation in the game field would help, and well handled could stay away from information overload.

* titfer: cockney rhyming slang. "Tit-for-tat, hat."

[LJFHutch]

So then, whither CM indeed. Can anything be done to streamline the mechanics without sacrificing hard-won authenticity? Is there a rabbit in that hat?

I can think of two things that would probably help:

1. Improved AI that was able to get an entire platoon to take up good positions in an area.

2. Streamlined UI, perhaps a system that allowed for easy access to the various groups (by that I mean platoons, companies etc, maybe it could be a fold out thing that only displayed as much info as you needed at the time), which would work well in conjunction with improved AI.

That way you could quickly and easily get a platoon where it was needed. Then again I've always preferred smaller games where I can get down a bit closer and really ... "micromanage" sounds like the wrong word here.

Co-play! A battalion vs battalion engagement with four or so players on each side all in proper chain of command would be absolutely fantastic

[Michael Emrys]

Or is it that the game is overall more complex, so even the same number of elements is more trouble than it's worth?

Both actually. A battalion now has more separate pieces on the board and the increased complexity make managing each of them more laborious. It is more of a geometric progression than a linear one.

Michael

[SlowMotion]

Co-play! A battalion vs battalion engagement with four or so players on each side all in proper chain of command would be absolutely fantastic

This would be the best improvement I can think of. Even with less units and 2 players on one side this game mode would produce games much better than when everything is controlled by one player.

[c3k]

I think better icons would improve gameplay-ability. If I could tell at a glance which units were 2 man scout teams, or 4 man teams, or 12 man squads, that would ease the amount of clicking about I do. Additionally, if the icon could tell me WHO/WHAT the unit was, that would help. The generic manly silhouette is used for far too many different unit types.

With larger battles I think only in terms of platoon objectives. The ability to "grab" all the members of a platoon and quickly plot a movement path would be great. Imagine a platoon engaged along several bocage lines. Select all, then craft a pull back and hooking manuever that would require about 10 points. Right now that is not very useful. Usually only one of the teams could benefit from the plotted path. The rest would be exposed to the enemy or ordered into impassable terrain. However, if I could ADJUST the movement points after plotting, that would save a LOT of unit selection and clicking.

Ken

[Childress]

Is the sweet spot so far away though? You can still get some pretty funky setups with the same number of icons as you'd've had in x1, I reckon. Or is it that the game is overall more complex, so even the same number of elements is more trouble than it's worth?

One wonders if the nucleus of the management issues lies in the setting. You have a claustrophobic environment (Normandy) with finicky placement demands and short, sudden engagement ranges. In the Commonwealth module there should be somewhat less bocage and more tank on tank encounters, often at stand off dsitance. Given equivalent force size control may prove less onerous.