Map Size and Tank Battles, Recon...

[GerryCMBB]

Hello All:

I am new to the series and have a question, not trying to start a flamewar or anything close to it.

A few posts say that recon vehicles are not appropriate for these missions as these vehicles would be used before we got to the point of the mission start. Also, my understanding is that battles between the really big tanks work best on larger maps and it seems there is a problem currently with computers be able to play on larger maps.

So I am wondering why Battlefront would have a game that seems not suited to big battles. I assume some changes will be made down the road to allow for bigger maps to work for all players? So that recon vehicles could be used in the usual role and Panthers, etc. could showcase their strengths better?

Thanks,

Gerry

[womble]

So I am wondering why Battlefront would have a game that seems not suited to big battles.

Because that's the game they wanted to design? They've built a system with a particular level of detail. That the level of detail will impose limits to the maximum practicable size of a battle is a given. You can play big battles on big rigs. If you want a Regiment-scale battle, though, a squad-scale game is probably not going to cut the mustard.

[George MC]

Most of the lethal range engagement by anti-tank (or tank) in the sector of Normandy that CMBN simulates (the US sector and taken from US figures for July/August 1944) was less than 600m (source John Buckley: British Armour in the Normandy Campaign). So big maps in CMBN would not make too much difference due to the close range of engagements.

Re the problem with PCs playing larger maps - I'm not sure that is the case. For sure some players have had issues with OOM but these causes are down to a variety of factors. For some playesr it's their machines are just not up to the task, for others is might be hardware configurations. I believe that optimising the game for playing larger scenarios is one of the things being looked into by BFC but it's not an issue that affects every and all players and large scenarios.

Check out the Firebrigade thread for more info on this subject (FWIW though Firebrigade which is a very large and open map is set on the Eastern Front hence the long tank engagement ranges.

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?p=1319869#post1319869

For recce vehicles I made an attempt to have players use recce vehciles more in the way they are designed operationally for in Huzzar. So the game, fundamentally I think, can cope with the issues you raise.

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=99752

The Panther in Normandy was very vulnrable in close range engagements to flanking fire. So it was less the success in Normandy than it perhaps was (arguably) on the Ost Front. Another point (and mentioned in the above book) was any German armour commanders preferred the Panzer IV due to it's shorter gun and more compact shape as it was less prone to the gun hanging on obstacles.

Cheery!

George

[Sergei]

I think this is a somewhat mistaken (but nevertheless interesting) question. Eg. the primary function of a truck is not to carry troops within a battlefield where it can get shot, because this is an inefficient use of a limited asset. Where trucks really shine is when you need to deliver a bunch of material or personnel across a 200 kilometer stretch of road in few hours. So trucks are not appropriate for the tactical environment seen in Combat Mission, but they still have their uses and many truck drivers did unfortunately find themselves too close to the action to make it back.

Armoured cars are similar. Like the old days cavalry, they really are meant for scouting out huge areas ahead of the main force, so that once the main force gets there the commanders can choose the routes of least resistance or bring the engineers to build bridges where they have been blown up etc. But this isn't a tactical role. Armoured cars did, however, occasionally get used for combat, either because they encountered an enemy roadblock that they cannot just ride past, or they were the only ones around, ie. desperation.

As for gunnery ranges, there were the occasional multiple kilometer kills, but average engagement ranges in North Western Europe were more closer to the 800m mark or below (in Finland it would probably be 200 meters...). I'm sure that some Jagdtiger platoon leaders wished the world was a flat pool table, but the reality was a bit different. What the actual game design problem is is that scenarios have finite maps, whereas real wars were fought on the whole planet with no edges in your way. On a finite map, when you move near the map edge it will be impossible to engage you from the direction of the edge. No matter how large the map is, this issue will remain. And this leads us to...

There are problems with enlarging the battlefield too much with regards to realism and playability as well. Currently the game allows for 16 square kilometer (4x4) maps, and this is very big already if you consider how many regiments could fit into that area in the Schwerpunkt. This would mean controlling several battalions fighting against several battalions (minimum). Likely the current maximum of four hours of game time wouldn't suffice. How many players would actually enjoy that? Combat Mission has from the start been more about controlling a reinforced company or so. I enjoy controlling a whole battalion, but more than that and it quickly becomes too much work. I have myself made some really large maps, but the problem always is, how can I fit a realistic and playable scenario on it? It's not realistic to have just a few companies on a 16 square kilometer map, but it becomes too much to control when you have several battalions.

Personally I'm all for allowing for ever larger maps, but it's not some kind of Holy Grail that would not bring new problems along with it. The majority of the best scenarios have rather restricted maps. The excellent ones with huge maps do it for a good reason.

[GerryCMBB]

Thanks for the informative answers. I personally would not want huge scenarios, as in large number of units and over an hour. I already have enough problems with all the clicking I have to do with the scenarios I have. I was thinking of the map size mostly for increasing the engagement range for certain tanks.

Again thanks for the answers. I enjoy reading peoples' thoughts on the game.

Gerry

[winkelried]

There are problems with enlarging the battlefield too much with regards to realism and playability as well. Currently the game allows for 16 square kilometer (4x4) maps, and this is very big already if you consider how many regiments could fit into that area in the Schwerpunkt. This would mean controlling several battalions fighting against several battalions (minimum). Likely the current maximum of four hours of game time wouldn't suffice. How many players would actually enjoy that? Combat Mission has from the start been more about controlling a reinforced company or so. I enjoy controlling a whole battalion, but more than that and it quickly becomes too much work. I have myself made some really large maps, but the problem always is, how can I fit a realistic and playable scenario on it? It's not realistic to have just a few companies on a 16 square kilometer map, but it becomes too much to control when you have several battalions.

i don't quite agree with your statement. IMHO troop density is too big in a lot of battles i've seen up to now with CMBN. larger maps would not necessarily lead to huge amounts of troops to control. on the other hand you would have much more opportunities for flanking movements and having a certain depth for defense.

it is clear that the troop density in a lots of situations in Normandy was pretty high, but the are other actions in the same timeframe where troop density was much lower - i currently work on a campaign where it would be nice to have 4x4 or at least 3x4 km maps and where you would usually see a kampfgruppe with 1 Bn + tanks/stug pitted against task forces of 3 to 4 companies (cav, tank, td, infantry) as they were in reality. battle duration was between 2 to 3 hours in reality.

[Sergei]

i currently work on a campaign where it would be nice to have 4x4 or at least 3x4 km maps

You can already have 4x4 maps in the game. You're not very clear here. Are you saying that this isn't sufficient? :confused:

[Erwin]

I agree with winkelried on this one. Firstly, in CM1 it was very easy to create and play large scale scenarios on huge maps (I think 4000m x 8000m was the max). My oppos and I almost exclusively played with multiple battalions of inf plus a company or two of armored vehicles on each side. Recon vehicles had an important role. (And if you want to try that size, Band of Brothers still runs CM1 tournies that cater to large engagements.)

BF wanted to go in another direction and design CM2 for smaller engagements. And that's fine. However, many of us never liked infantry-centric scenarios even in CM1. So, for those of us who loved the huge scenarios of CM1 with lots of room for maneuver and mobile/armored battles, CM2 is not as much fun.

CM1 is still unsurpassed as a large scale maneuever/armor-centric game, while CM2 is magnificent as a small-scale urban/MOUT and infantry-centric game.

Thank goodness we have both to choose from as there is something for everyone.

[winkelried]

You can already have 4x4 maps in the game. You're not very clear here. Are you saying that this isn't sufficient? :confused:

Yes - theoretically you can. But practically it's impossible to get such big maps in a decent European settings without OOM problems.

[winkelried]

BF wanted to go in another direction and design CM2 for smaller engagements. And that's fine. However, many of us never liked infantry-centric scenarios even in CM1. So, for those of us who loved the huge scenarios of CM1 with lots of room for maneuver and mobile/armored battles, CM2 is not as much fun.

CM1 is still unsurpassed as a large scale maneuever/armor-centric game, while CM2 is magnificent as a small-scale urban/MOUT and infantry-centric game.

Thank goodness we have both to choose from as there is something for everyone.

I agree with you. on the other hand it think, that CM2 still has the potential for large maneuver/armor-centric battles (There are some battles like this already in CMSF). There are two factors which will help:

• there will be a learning curve as a player. i experience this right now. it's is tougher than CMx1 it seems, but if you look at the learning curve we went through from CMBO to CMBB to CMAK - this learning curve was tough too - just longer.
  
• the OOM issues will eventuelly get resolved (at least to some extent i believe), hardware will become more powerful etc
  

[MG TOW]

During the Lorraine campaign in September 1944, the German 5th Panzer Corps massed the largest concentration of German tanks seen since the battles at Caen and Mortain in July 1944. This counterattack force included over 300 tanks, with the majority being new Panther tanks.

Their opponent was the 4th Armoured Division, known as "Patton's Best", a well trained, well-led division which had become battle hardened since the fighting for Coutances in July 1944. From 19 to 22 September 1944, the 4th Armored Division broke the back of the German counteroffensive near Arracourt, destroying 107 tanks and 30 assault guns for the loss of only 14 M4 tanks and 7 M5A1 light tanks. The tank destroyers quickly deployed in a shallow depression and opened fire at about 150 yards. In the short fight that followed, three of the four American tank destroyers were lost, but not until they had destroyed seven enemy tanks.

......Lots of examples of tank battles well within the typical battlemap size. And I don't mean 4km. As for recon vehicles, contact or break-out would not be unplausable for smaller scenarios.

[A Canadian Cat]

<snip>

A few posts say that recon vehicles are not appropriate for these missions as these vehicles would be used before we got to the point of the mission start. <snip>

I was going to point to Huzzar and I see George already has so I'll just say that CMBN will let you design a scenario where ACs are useful and fun. I am playing Huzar with a friend right now (blind we have not played it before nor did we look at the other side's briefing and order of battle). Reinforcements have just arrived and the real battle has begin. We had a great time with the recon phase and are really enjoying it.

So, I would say that scenarios can be designed to make good use of ACs - good jog George. They don't belong in all scenarios though - that is true.

[RockinHarry]

Their opponent was the 4th Armoured Division, known as "Patton's Best", a well trained, well-led division which had become battle hardened since the fighting for Coutances in July 1944. From 19 to 22 September 1944, the 4th Armored Division broke the back of the German counteroffensive near Arracourt, destroying 107 tanks and 30 assault guns for the loss of only 14 M4 tanks and 7 M5A1 light tanks. The tank destroyers quickly deployed in a shallow depression and opened fire at about 150 yards. In the short fight that followed, three of the four American tank destroyers were lost, but not until they had destroyed seven enemy tanks.

A more detailed account from "The Lorraine Campaign" (page 224):

"A section

of M–4 tanks were in an outpost position south of Lezey when the first

Panther suddenly loomed out of the fog-hardly seventy-five yards from the

two American tanks. The Panther and two of its fellows were destroyed in

a matter of seconds, whereupon the remaining German tanks turned hur-

riedly away to the south. Capt. William A. Dwight, the liaison officer who

had reported the enemy armor, arrived at Arracourt and was ordered to take

a platoon of the 704th Tank Destroyer Battalion to aid the tanks at Lezey. Just

west of Bezange-la-Petite Dwight's platoon saw a number of German tanks

moving through the fog. The tank destroyers quickly deployed in a shallow

depression and opened fire at about 150 yards. In the short fight that followed,

three of the four American tank destroyers were lost, but not until they had

destroyed seven enemy tanks."

[MG TOW]

A more detailed account from "The Lorraine Campaign" (page 224):

"A section

of M–4 tanks were in an outpost position south of Lezey when the first

Panther suddenly loomed out of the fog-hardly seventy-five yards from the

two American tanks. The Panther and two of its fellows were destroyed in

a matter of seconds, whereupon the remaining German tanks turned hur-

riedly away to the south. Capt. William A. Dwight, the liaison officer who

had reported the enemy armor, arrived at Arracourt and was ordered to take

a platoon of the 704th Tank Destroyer Battalion to aid the tanks at Lezey. Just

west of Bezange-la-Petite Dwight's platoon saw a number of German tanks

moving through the fog. The tank destroyers quickly deployed in a shallow

depression and opened fire at about 150 yards. In the short fight that followed,

three of the four American tank destroyers were lost, but not until they had

destroyed seven enemy tanks."

Yes, from a free online Download. Really good resource.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/48462326/The-Lorraine-Campaign

.

[sburke]

That site wasn't responding, but this is the official US army history of the Lorraine Campaign.

http://www.history.army.mil/books/wwii/lorraine/lorraine-content.html

[BletchleyGeek]

I agree with you. on the other hand it think, that CM2 still has the potential for large maneuver/armor-centric battles (There are some battles like this already in CMSF).

I wholeheartedly agree with this. CM:BN covers in its time-frame the Third Army breakout from Normandy, well past bocage country. I don't see any inherent limitation in the engine, besides technical ones regarding RAM availability.

And quite a few others in this thread point to the Lorraine campaign. All the elements - with the exception of some minor quibbles regarding equipment such as the M18 Hellcat - are in the game to replicate engagements like the one in Arracourt in September 1944.

There's some people who have even come out with a Singling scenario:

Singling (Abram's goes postal) by Adelscott & Iosef

Briefing et al are in Spanish, though.

Another example that comes to my mind is the "No Exit" scenario by Sgt Schulz: that's hardly bocage fighting, more like the kind of combined arms actions people miss from scenarios made for previous CM installments.

The elements are there, eventually people will find the time to make more scenarios like that

[RockinHarry]

That site wasn't responding, but this is the official US army history of the Lorraine Campaign.

http://www.history.army.mil/books/wwii/lorraine/lorraine-content.html

Scribd has some really good reads, as well as downloads. Make sure you don´t block every script and cookies, as this will prevent loading PDF docs in your browser. Having an account partly enables to download resources as well. I found a number of very good stuff from this member (in german):

http://www.scribd.com/collections/2499675/WWII-German

and off course maaany other great stuff if you look up this members shelves

http://www.scribd.com/haraoi_conal/shelf

[RockinHarry]

Thanks for the informative answers. I personally would not want huge scenarios, as in large number of units and over an hour. I already have enough problems with all the clicking I have to do with the scenarios I have. I was thinking of the map size mostly for increasing the engagement range for certain tanks.

Again thanks for the answers. I enjoy reading peoples' thoughts on the game.

Gerry

I think map sizes of 2.5 to 3km square should be sufficient to allow outside normandy style tank engagements, with maybe "normal" engagement ranges of 800-1500m, with bits of maneuvre space left.

From my personal experience it´s less concern with general map sizes, but more with a maps "content", leading to OOM issues. Limiting foliage as well as grass (can be mixed 50% with dirt or sand ... to avoid huge texture loads) helps a lot to make large maps playable on medium performance PC´s. A good tank map also has lots of small terrain contours (rises, depressions, sunken roads, RR embankments...) for use as cover for a likely outgunned tank force.

[winkelried]

From my personal experience it´s less concern with general map sizes, but more with a maps "content", leading to OOM issues. Limiting foliage as well as grass (can be mixed 50% with dirt or sand ... to avoid huge texture loads) helps a lot to make large maps playable on medium performance PC´s.

Fully agree - never understood this moving grass craze anyway