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

[Erwin]

It would be very helpful to have "E" inside the inf symbol for Engineers.

Also, currently when you double-click on a platoon HQ, all squads and teams belonging to that HQ light up (altho' not enuff in my opinion). In RL IIRC three dots on top of an inf symbol means a platoon, two dots a squad, one dot a team. That sort of system would be useful to identify the teams of a squad when you double-click on a platoon HQ. Either that, or have the team symbols belonging to a particular squad be a different color, so one can easily see where the teams of a particular squad are located.

[ricroma]

I am a newbee, not a smart player in general, and have little understand on game mechanics and technical stuff. Therefore, I'd rather shut up, but still I would like to express my opinions.

I really love CM:BN, and I cannot wait for new modules, still I think that some improvements can be done. I repeat I'm not expert so I won't venture into discussing AI management and such, but I also think that most of the user frustrations can be significantly lessen with some UI tweaks.

- Selecting units: this should be looked upon. The floating dots are ok when playing small scenarios, but when you have to manage a vast amount of troops it gets confusing. More variety of the icons would be welcome too, such as specific ones for Engineers.

- Moving troops around. In one of my old post I've suggested to add a feature that I personally would find very usefull. Didn't get much appreciation back then, but I'll try to repropose now, maybe I will be luckier. Maybe this is my style of playing, but when I move troops around I like to use certain "patterns". Like:

scouting: set a round cover arc of 20m -> contact movement for 50 meters -> 15 sec pause -> repeat

marching: fast movement mode for 100m -> 15 sec pause

So, instead of issuing 30 times the same orders sequence, I would really like to be able to set some custom patterns that then I can access from the movement menu.

This are my simple suggestions for now... hope you guys appreciate. Otherwise, well, I've tried!

Thanks,

Ricroma

[Erwin]

"So, instead of issuing 30 times the same orders sequence..."

+1 to that. For some reason CMBN requires one to make way too many clicks to find info or get things done, and that significantly slows down gameplay - even vs the AI.

"I'd rather shut up, but still I would like to express my opinions."

I know what you mean.

[Michael Emrys]

One wonders if the nucleus of the management issues lies in the setting.

Not in my case. After the first month following the release of the game, almost all my playing has been QBs on fairly open maps. The problem as I stated is the increase in the number of icons for a given sized force and the number of things you have to do with them.

Michael

[Michael Emrys]

More variety of the icons would be welcome too, such as specific ones for Engineers.

As well as specific icons for heavy weapons teams, such as MGs, mortars, zooks, etc.

Michael

[Erwin]

"specific icons for heavy weapons teams, such as MGs, mortars, zooks, etc."

I thought there were. Or, is it the WW2 icon mod I am using. It has all of those, but not Engineer icons.

[womble]

"specific icons for heavy weapons teams, such as MGs, mortars, zooks, etc."

I thought there were. Or, is it the WW2 icon mod I am using. It has all of those, but not Engineer icons.

Yeah, it does. Sometimes the assignment isn't there: splitting an AT team from a US squad doesn't change the icon to a bazooka, like a separately-bought AT team would show. It'd be nice to be able to tell the difference between LMG teams and tripod MG teams from the icon, too.

[Erwin]

Ok, I understand and agree... It would be good to know which of ones' split squads were the Assault, Recon or AT teams. In a large scenario, unless one has a photographic memory one has to do a lot of clicking to find who is where.

[undead reindeer cavalry]

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

sorry if i misunderstand what you are asking (simulation or game ui or what), but here's one take.

in the real battlefield everything by default is isolated and fighting their own battle. the isolated elements do not know much if anything of each other -- they are preoccupied by their own battle.

in a typical WW2 firefight the largest natural unit is probably that of a team: the guys in the team are able to share information and make decisions as a group. this is because they are close enough to usually see one another (at least by popping their head up to observe for a while or by using battle sounds as a cue -- fighting in prepared positions would be different and the natural size of the unit would probably be closer to two men) and hear one another and thus share information (by yelling during pauses in explosions, gunfire and other noise -- here again suppressed or temporarily disabled men may be an exception in that they many not be able to hear or see anything even if it's literally 5 cm in front of their face). the information they share is the type of thinking that there's an enemy at some specific location, of someone about to throw a grenade, of someone reloading their weapon and so forth.

in order for a company to be something other than 20-50 of these kinds of groups of guys fighting their own separated small wars, there needs to be something extra added. adding that something is not automatical or easy, and often there was not much added and the end result was the typical SNAFU or FUBAR.

the first step is the squad leader. he has just about the number of men under his control so that he can see or know each man's general position in most situations. during a firefight he is trying to find out what his men are doing. who's shooting, where's the fire coming from and what is actually happening in very concrete level of things.

once he has somehow managed to get a vague clue of what is happening (both by observing and asking from the guys), he is trying to form an idea what he should do. for example where to position the MG and what sector to give it. where should teams or groups of guys move (on the scale of some individual meters -- for example take cover in a ditch or behind a wall or fire at some treeline).

once he has this idea he is trying to make the guys do what he wants. because everyone is shooting on both sides and there's lots of yelling and all kind of confusion, it usually means he needs to get right next to the men he wants to do something (for example to stop firing so that he can make sense of what is happening, or to get team A to fire at target X that was just spotted by or firing at team . this can be quite hard and it requires a lot of guts, as there are bullets flying, explosions going off, and the poor squad leader doesn't even really know what is actually happening.

in essence the squad leader is trying to combine the otherwise isolated teams into one entity that supports its individual elements and combines its firepower in order to have a maximum effect on the battlefield.

next up in the hierarchy is the infamous platoon leader. this poor fellow controls so many men that he can only see a small portion of them at any given typical moment in a firefight. this means he needs to go out and find out what everyone is doing and what is happening. this is tough stuff because usually he needs to move tens of meters just to get from one squad to another (remember that he needs to have his mouth next to a squad leader's ear, in order to pass a message, and vice versa).

it's also tough stuff because he doesn't have the privilegion of being allowed to just observe what is happening: he needs to tell the squads what they should do. after running from one squad to another a couple of times, after having stabilized the situation a bit, he has to form a theory of what is actually happening on the sector of his platoon. he is trying to estimate what kind of enemy he is facing (about a squad at that treeline, with a MG somewhere near those buildings, possibly another squad further to the left...), what the intentions of the enemy are, what's the status of his squads (2. squad is being suppressed by the MG fire) and what are the possible courses of action his platoon could take.

after this is done he needs to figure a plan. where to put possible reinforcing support arms so that they would have the maximum effect and what to do with each squad. it's a bit like what squad leader does to unite the teams into a bigger whole that supports its elements, but unlike squad leader the platoon leader can not see his whole unit from one location.

then after the has formed a plan he needs to tell each one of the different squads and/or sections what he wants them to do. this he accomplishes again by running around while taking fire from mostly unknown locations. this takes time. if he is slow the situation will change before his planned actions can be executed. if he is too fast or unlucky (or rather with normal luck) he gets wounded or killed at some point of the process.

again the basic idea with platoon leader is to somehow make the different squads fight one and the same battle. to combine their actions. to concentrate their fire. to make the whole platoon utilize well covered path found by A squad, to make the support sections start firing at specific moment as the squads assault across a field, and so forth.

then you have the company commander. he is mostly getting information from platoon leaders, because he can't usually observe the whole company sector from one single position. this is slow process. after he has formed some kind of idea what is happening, based on the reports and partly from his own observations and estimations, he is most likely going to focus on the actions on the sector he considers the most critical. because company sector is some hundereds of meters, there's no way he can just walk or run around from platoon to platoon. radios are cool if they can be used (there's LOS and there's not too much disturbance from terrain and combat actions).

thus he has to choose where he goes. where he goes he adds his experience and the support arms under his command. he makes the platoons work together and according to one plan. i simplify this because this post is already getting awfully long.

the point here is that by default nothing useful happens in the firefight. there's just chaos that gets the men nowhere (except perhaps to the state of even greater chaos). someone must gather information and issue orders. it doesn't happen automatically -- it requires lots of work and time. the higher the number of units (or men) someone needs to control, and the further away they are from one another, the slower and harder the process becomes.

"splitting squads" (it applies as much to platoons and companies), especially when the split elements are not kept connected in space, causes huge increase in the strife to control the firefight. it may cause the whole force to break apart, as the interval between information sharing and order passing becomes far too long to be used to guide actions in meaningful ways (orders always late, contradictory, arrive in wrong order and are nonsensical to the situation).

the fundamental point is that the challenge in the firefight is not to split off elements and send them into their own missions, but to combine the already, by default, separated elements into a one larger unified force that is able to combine and coordinate otherwise dispersed chaotic firepower and action.

if splitting squads (or platoons or companies) achieves the above then it's great. if it has the opposite effect and the decisions are solely based on the godlike knowledge the player has of the firefight and the gamey effects the player can achieve by unrealistic levels of micromanagement and coordination of microscopic elements, then it sucks if it's not properly penalized.

[Erwin]

Very good summary of what CM2 is trying to simulate. (And also the reason why many of us believe WEGO to be the better/more realistic method of play, as playing RT with pauses to instantly coordinate all of ones forces eliminates 99% of the above RL issues.)

[sburke]

the point here is that by default nothing useful happens in the firefight. there's just chaos that gets the men nowhere (except perhaps to the state of even greater chaos). someone must gather information and issue orders. it doesn't happen automatically -- it requires lots of work and time. the higher the number of units (or men) someone needs to control, and the further away they are from one another, the slower and harder the process becomes.

"splitting squads" (it applies as much to platoons and companies), especially when the split elements are not kept connected in space, causes huge increase in the strife to control the firefight. it may cause the whole force to break apart, as the interval between information sharing and order passing becomes far too long to be used to guide actions in meaningful ways (orders always late, contradictory, arrive in wrong order and are nonsensical to the situation).

the fundamental point is that the challenge in the firefight is not to split off elements and send them into their own missions, but to combine the already, by default, separated elements into a one larger unified force that is able to combine and coordinate otherwise dispersed chaotic firepower and action.

if splitting squads (or platoons or companies) achieves the above then it's great. if it has the opposite effect and the decisions are solely based on the godlike knowledge the player has of the firefight and the gamey effects the player can achieve by unrealistic levels of micromanagement and coordination of microscopic elements, then it sucks if it's not properly penalized.

very nice summary and perspective and I don't disagree with any of it, however I would say that splitting the squad is no more or less god like than the role the player assumes for every unit of the company (Noted that you already had made that point). Assigning platoon objectives assumes the same godlike omnipotence. For example not launching platoon 1 into an assault till platoon 2 is in position if they are not in range to communicate or even further up the chain at company level.

Part of me would like to see some potential for units having issues in following orders or not being in communication etc, but like you I see no way to really incorporate that. The Gamers tried to include something like that in their Tactical series and I understand the St Lo game as well.

The closeset thing we have to that in CMBN is relative spotting, but even with that, I may not be able to shoot at you, but I do know how to get to your flank to shoot at someone I can't see yet....

For myself, I do generally try to keep the various units even when split in radius enough to maintain C&C. Partly because they get really hard to manage otherwise and partly because not doing so "feels" wrong. Keeping the squad as a single unit doesn't really work for me though as I then become dependent on the AI as to how my fire teams work together etc Also for scout and AT teams it is a necessity and a normal function.

I do get your point though, breaking up your squads to send them on wildly disparate missions and ignoring your unit structure is more game playing than simulation.

[Navigator37]

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.

(If) CMSF ports into WW2, it could risk the ASL issue of uber-complexity... one of the reasons I never "got" into ASL was its mind-numbing complexity... There is an art to picking the right simplifications.

Thus, I am going to assert that the success or failure of the CM2 project is ... going to rest on the wisdom of some very important underlying assumptions.

I think that Erwin and Rankorian are on to something important here. Like them, I was a huge Panzerblitz fan but was turned off by Squad Leader. Like them, I was a huge fan of CM1, but can't seem to warm up to CMBN even though I really want to.

Even though the annoyance of multiple-multiple die rolls of SL/ASL are internalized in the CMBN game mechanics, the uber-complexity of the game still manifests itself in ways that may make it more realistic (I'm not sure I concede the point) but that also make it less intuitive, less playable, less fun. (ie What is this squad shooting at? Depends, could be any number of several targets. How do I know? You don't!).

I think it comes down to the question of complexity, and where CM2 falls on the continuum between a 'game' and a 'simulation'. For me, it's gone too far in the direction of simulation at the expense of playability: sure the foliage looks great, but I have to keep the trees turned off to find my units; artillery spotting is so exquisitely realistic/complex, I've just about given up on it. In fact, I'm beginning to wonder how artillery was ever used at all in WWII.

I know this is subjective and that BattleFront will never please everyone. But it's vital for the survival of the game that they get it right for most people. I am enthusiastically rooting that they do.

[sburke]

I think that Erwin and Rankorian are on to something important here. Like them, I was a huge Panzerblitz fan but was turned off by Squad Leader. Like them, I was a huge fan of CM1, but can't seem to warm up to CMBN even though I really want to.

Even though the annoyance of multiple-multiple die rolls of SL/ASL are internalized in the CMBN game mechanics, the uber-complexity of the game still manifests itself in ways that may make it more realistic (I'm not sure I concede the point) but that also make it less intuitive, less playable, less fun. (ie What is this squad shooting at? Depends, could be any number of several targets. How do I know? You don't!).

I think it comes down to the question of complexity, and where CM2 falls on the continuum between a 'game' and a 'simulation'. For me, it's gone too far in the direction of simulation at the expense of playability: sure the foliage looks great, but I have to keep the trees turned off to find my units; artillery spotting is so exquisitely realistic/complex, I've just about given up on it. In fact, I'm beginning to wonder how artillery was ever used at all in WWII.

I know this is subjective and that BattleFront will never please everyone. But it's vital for the survival of the game that they get it right for most people. I am enthusiastically rooting that they do.

That is a tough one and unfortunately one of the things wrapped up in it is the need for a player to determine if this is the game for them and not try and make it into something it isn't. I am not sure I agree with the whole premise of Panzerblitz versus ASL as a comparison, but I get the gist of the idea. Despite it being repeated over and over to the point folks have gotten sick of it that this is not CMx1 part 2, but a whole new game, I don't think the audience has really grasped that concept and is still staring back longingly at things from CMx1 as if they were simply left out in an upgrade. While you can certainly push the limits of the game for bigger and bigger battles (if it will run on the map scale required), the game itself shines at the company level. I don't think it helped that some of the advertising seemed to undermine the argument. Remember the video clip of The King is Back? The comparison of the 2 engines in that format really did push the argument that you actually should be looking at it as a direct descendant.

The other aspect that I think folks may have to accept is, though BFC might not have gotten it right for them, BFC seems to feel based on the only real database in existence - their sales- that they have gotten it right for most even if there are still some things that need some work. From my own perspective, I am one of those who thinks they got it right and every now and then while playing a battle I am simply awestruck at how well they have gotten it. Yeah I still have my list of items that I would like to see addressed or added, but I am way more than satisfied with what I bought. I personally did like ASL over Panzerblitz so perhaps that does explain a bit.

[A Canadian Cat]

<snip>artillery spotting is so exquisitely realistic/complex, I've just about given up on it. In fact, I'm beginning to wonder how artillery was ever used at all in WWII.<snip>

Lots of interesting ideas snipped...

Re artillery:

I have been thinking about this for a while now. Mostly triggered by my disconnect from people's experience with artillery being powerful. I have yet to have my troops caught under an artillery barrage (amazing, I know, and I have been playing the game since it came out - mostly meeting engagement QBs). I think I know the reason - we are moving our troops waaaaay to fast. I know that when I started playing I had my guys picking their way forward carefully, expecting the enemy to popup at any moment. But of course they did not because they started at the opposite side of the board. After a few battles where I got slaughtered because my opponent rushed to take the objectives and left me trying to attack into their defense with an equal force I decided I was playing the game wrong.

The thing is, given how quickly we react to known enemy positions and the assumption that in a meeting engagement we have safe space to move into artillery is just too slow. Having to wait 6 or 7 minutes for a barrage to start means no one is there any more. I have switched to using artillery in a ground denial and shield role instead. More often than not I have made an attack plan that includes preplaned barrages to shield and conceal my force movements rather than directly targeting known enemy positions.

All of the above applies to off board artillery not close support light mortars which are quite effective when used as direct fire.

Now if we were moving our troops slower and making sure they had a secure position before moving to the next location FOs with the help of scouts would be able to get that 6 minute artillery to drop on the forest were you company was forming up for their assault on the town.

I am not sure how the game can be changed to help us move slower. Perhaps we should be playing attack and assault QBs instead of meeting engagements. That might help.

Thoughts?

[A Canadian Cat]

<snip>in the real battlefield everything by default is isolated and fighting their own battle. the isolated elements do not know much if anything of each other -- they are preoccupied by their own battle.<snip>

Brilliant explanation of how things hang together IRL. All of which further points out, to me anyway, that we move our troops around the board too fast. It takes more time to coordinate your platoon and company to make mutually supporting moves from cover to cover as you approach the enemy. Each person simultaneously trying to follow the plan and stay safe. No platoon just runs across the field hoping their sister platoon is in position to cover them. The run across the field when they know their sister platoon is in position (and they have spent a few moments observing and sucking up their own courage).

Again I am, sadly, not able to offer a solution other than my earlier suggestion to play less meeting engagements. I'll have to try my next QBs as attacks and assaults to see if it forces me to play differently.

[sburke]

Lots of interesting ideas snipped...

Re artillery:

I have been thinking about this for a while now. Mostly triggered by my disconnect from people's experience with artillery being powerful. I have yet to have my troops caught under an artillery barrage (amazing, I know, and I have been playing the game since it came out - mostly meeting engagement QBs). I think I know the reason - we are moving our troops waaaaay to fast. I know that when I started playing I had my guys picking their way forward carefully, expecting the enemy to popup at any moment. But of course they did not because they started at the opposite side of the board. After a few battles where I got slaughtered because my opponent rushed to take the objectives and left me trying to attack into their defense with an equal force I decided I was playing the game wrong.

The thing is, given how quickly we react to known enemy positions and the assumption that in a meeting engagement we have safe space to move into artillery is just too slow. Having to wait 6 or 7 minutes for a barrage to start means no one is there any more. I have switched to using artillery in a ground denial and shield role instead. More often than not I have made an attack plan that includes preplaned barrages to shield and conceal my force movements rather than directly targeting known enemy positions.

All of the above applies to off board artillery not close support light mortars which are quite effective when used as direct fire.

Now if we were moving our troops slower and making sure they had a secure position before moving to the next location FOs with the help of scouts would be able to get that 6 minute artillery to drop on the forest were you company was forming up for their assault on the town.

I am not sure how the game can be changed to help us move slower. Perhaps we should be playing attack and assault QBs instead of meeting engagements. That might help.

Thoughts?

Interesting points. I have not played QB meeting engagements, but expect you are on the money there. Because you KNOW your opponent is rushing at the same objective there isn't much point to taking it slow till you get closer. I would also agree with your other point about screening etc becoming more important. Concepts like denying high ground observation points etc.

Playing mostly scenarios HTH that have a defender/attacker situation I find I do move slower and still need to lay plans for artillery when I expect my troops will be in position to take advantage of it and have also been caught under my opponents fire. That in turn leads to me needing to split teams and disperse them as otherwise I risk losing whole squads at one blow. Typically they are in mk I eyeball view of one another when they are hunkering down in the preparation phase but far enough apart that hopefully they can survive an arty barrage.

Von Kleist and I have actually wondered if most players would be bored to tears watching our current game of Die Ammis Kommen.

I suspect your are right that meeting enagagements require some different perspective on how artillery would be used as well as basic intel we wouldn't normally know. Head toward that town, the Germans are on the way with a similar force size. You won't run into anyone till you are close so get a move on. Probably why I tend to prefer the scenarios. There is nothing wrong with rushing an objective if you know it is up for grabs and strategic. However once someone is there first the battle becomes futile in that the slower force wouldn't continue the attack against an equal force. They would either wait to be reinforced, or screen the position in hope that another objective might make the position untenable for the opponent - like a crucial over watch position that would render them isolated.

[A Canadian Cat]

Playing mostly scenarios HTH that have a defender/attacker situation I find I do move slower and still need to lay plans for artillery when I expect my troops will be in position to take advantage of it and have also been caught under my opponents fire. That in turn leads to me needing to split teams and disperse them as otherwise I risk losing whole squads at one blow. Typically they are in mk I eyeball view of one another when they are hunkering down in the preparation phase but far enough apart that hopefully they can survive an arty barrage.

Thanks for offering your view on artillery use during an attack / defense scenarios. I think I will start mixing in some more attack / defense QBs and scenarios into my play. I am playing Huzzar! right now and even though it is still much like a meeting engagement there are enough on the board German forces at the start that I did not feel like I could just rush forward and was quite careful with my recon units and ran into some nasty surprises. We are quite enjoying that scenario.

[sburke]

Thanks for offering your view on artillery use during an attack / defense scenarios. I think I will start mixing in some more attack / defense QBs and scenarios into my play. I am playing Huzzar! right now and even though it is still much like a meeting engagement there are enough on the board German forces at the start that I did not feel like I could just rush forward and was quite careful with my recon units and ran into some nasty surprises. We are quite enjoying that scenario.

LOL I got battered on that one as the Americans. I believe it has had some modifications since then, but regardless I really enjoyed the opening phase of recon. It was so fluid, but tense it was hard not to get really sucked into it.

[MOSwas71331]

Luckily, when enemies opened fire, the Panzerschrek guy just aimed at the house, and killed almost everybody without batting an eyelid...

Your graphics must be a lot better than mine. I can't tell when my men are batting their eyelids.

[sburke]

Your graphics must be a lot better than mine. I can't tell when my men are batting their eyelids.

It's under the special tab, typical tactic is to start in slow, then hunt mode while batting your eyelashes. This causes the enemy to either be shy and embarrassed or just uncomfortable and creepy. While they are so discomfited you shoot them.

[Childress]

I think I will start mixing in some more attack / defense QBs and scenarios into my play. I am playing Huzzar! right now and even though it is still much like a meeting engagement there are enough on the board German forces at the start that I did not feel like I could just rush forward and was quite careful with my recon units and ran into some nasty surprises. We are quite enjoying that scenario.

A scenario with Meeting Engagement elements is an entirely different animal than a ME QB battle where both players know that their forces are precisely equal from the outset. The former actually occurred in RL. The latter resembles whack-a-mole.

[jbmtintin]

Your graphics must be a lot better than mine. I can't tell when my men are batting their eyelids.

At least you are more credible than me...