Managing complexity.

[DavidFields]

While playing a company level simulation, one would, of course, in paradise, also want the simulation to stretch from hand-to-hand combat, to battalion (Regiment!) level actions.

But the "devil" is in managing the complexity. If one is messing with one detail, you can't be working on something else. As one adds modules, and more quirky details--flamethrowers, flail tanks, bridge demolition, NKVD, the art becomes in deciding what realism is useful, and what is burdensome.

There are at least 4 details in CMBN which I have not (generally) seen in other WW2 simulations. The question is, do they add more than they complicate?

[As a counter-example, I think the "resupply" from jeeps/trucks is a great idea--reasonably realistic, and allowing longer scenarios and interesting decisions to make.]

1. XO squads: Where have you been my entire life? Where they rolled into the HQ unit, and it thought best not to put them in the same action spot in this case? I sort of thought the XO was with the upper level command HQs, coordinating, and making sure supplies come in. As a practical matter, the way I move units, I tend to accidently leave them behind. Yes, they can be used as buddy aid--is that historical, though? I am not against them, it is just that they are another odd unit to move [abstracting, one could just have any HQ personel take the dead leader's place].

2. Ammo bearers: Ditto to the above. I sort of always knew they were there. But moving them, keeping them alive, keeping with their unit (I have not tried to sort out if any ammo bearer could supply any MG), is tedious. Technically, they could stay back from the front line, somewhere relatively safe, and only come to the front line when necessary. As a practical matter, that is too much micromanagement--and I am not sure what the general doctrine of the time was, anyway. The problem here, perhaps, is that units which did not have to be exposed would find someplace to be incredibly non-exposed, and that is not quite yet modeled here.

3. Deploy, for MGs: I can see the rationale. One should not be able to immediately fire an MG as soon as one reaches a position. On the other hand, to set up an attack, have everyone in position, and find out...drat...I did not deploy that MG...(or not find out, until late in the firefight)..is annoying. Yes, I should have remembered to "deploy". But this is not a tactical issue, it is pure detail. Presumably, my MG unit would have had an idea that deploying was a good idea. One can give the "stuff happens in combat" argument, but I buy that better when it involves jamming. Is giving a "deploy" order a major tactical issue in WW2? Is there no way to abstract this?

4. Buddy aid: If it is largely atmospheric, fine--though can we do it prone--even if not entirely realistic, to obtain realistic results? If it actually has major results, is the complexity worth it? This is a question--I am unsure of the answer.

This is all meant to be constructive. I continue to look forward to CM2 getting to ampoulets, nebelwerfers, and Hungarian cavalry attacks.

[Erwin]

I would also add to an "exercises in frustration" list the complexity of a LOS tool that often does not tell you what your gun can fire at, only what ammo bearer #3 may be able to see. What's the game purpose of that sort of useless info when all one really cares about is whether your gun can shoot at the target right in front of it?

[Dave85]

I was thinking the same thing about XO's and ammo bearers, too much micro. When we have the option to split a rifle squad into teams anyway, would it not make sense to have the option to merge machine gun/HQ teams into a squad? Other thing I was wondering, will the MG ammo bearer top up my GI's m1's if they run low?

[JRMC1879]

Mmmm...

Dont agree at all - you are arguing against four things that just add to the flavour of the game and make it what its ... Ammo bearers, first aid etc are all things I have longed to see in a tactical wargmame.

I would argue for

1. greater flexibilty in ammo simulation - ie being able to detach a single man back to get ammo for the rest of the squad.

2. Buddy aid - I would argue for the tactile simulation of casualty evacuation - ie detaching men to evacuate casualties

3. Deploy as I understand it is an option - the gun can still fire ? at least for german mg's and in cmsf

4. XO's were still part of the fight wernt they - so they have to be there - If they posess a radio they are useful for mortar spotting - and dont they have some leadership benefit ?

People complain about realism - then argue against things that if you read any real life accounts often figure as the single most important facets of warfare. what brings the game to life for me are the things outside of just shooting at each other

In short I would argue for more detail not less - its a tactical simulation after all ... then again I would argue for simulation of hot meal delivery and post drops also ...

[sburke]

In short I would argue for more detail not less - its a tactical simulation after all ... then again I would argue for simulation of hot meal delivery and post drops also ...

LOL a morale boost when mail call shows up, except for the random guy who receives a dear John Pixel letter.

Seriously though I am with you on this. I enjoy these additional items. You can use them however you want but I try to use them as they would be intended overall. But heck if you aren't worried about having ammo bearers, send em in as additional line infantry. Same with the XO team.

Deploying is a decision that you need to make. Depending on the unit, packing up time can eat into movement. Do you really want them to auto deploy or do you want them to wait till you have them in position?

[Wreck]

Deploying is a decision that you need to make. Depending on the unit, packing up time can eat into movement. Do you really want them to auto deploy or do you want them to wait till you have them in position?

I want them to auto-deploy at the end of any move order, or when I cancel an existing move. The game could retain the ability to not deploy, by clicking the button from down to up. I don't think I'd use it much, though.

Also, any deployable weapon should autodeploy whenever it is idle, if it is not deployed.

[Rex J.]

Other thing I was wondering, will the MG ammo bearer top up my GI's m1's if they run low?

No. Units only share ammo with units in the same platoon – or in the case of mortars arranged in sections, the same section.

[Amizaur]

Maybe make such things optional ? Some "checkboxes" you can activate or not - like "MG deploying", "ammo bearers" ? I'm sure I would not want to decrease the realism "for all" - but I'm not against making some things optional.

On the other hand, I would not be happy if some BF programmer was to spend time coding "optional" realism features, instead of working on much more fundamental issues, like proper "Hunt" command, editable waypoints and also some kind of "preview of computer-generated route" - which would show if tanks or squads are going to chose different route than the human player intended.

[Erwin]

It's also a question of time. Every click is a piece of time. So if the default were what one wanted, in this case to auto-deploy, one would save all the time one spends ordering "deploy." In the scenario I am playing now I have 4 HMG's and moving them around and then ordering deploy is just one more piece of unnecessary irritation.

[Wodin]

I hate micro managing but apart fro maybe the ammo bearers (though ther eonly for the mortars so keeping them alive isn't to hard I can't see any massive time consuming items in that list that require to much micromanagment.

I like having to deploy the weapon. Adds to immersion. I mean how long does it actually take to cklick the deploy button. Again I think it's because we int he West live faster lives now and want everything to be instant. Including games. Take you time and enjoy it. We have a save option. You can carry on the next day or week or whatever.

I'd like to see more order options therefore adding even more to the complexity.

So no I really don't think any of those mentioned is really an issue to be honest.

[jbmtintin]

So no I really don't think any of those mentioned is really an issue to be honest.

I agree with that. Deploying MGs is great, buddy aid too. Maybe only changes about Ammo bearers could be ok, if they can be splitted.

[winkelried]

playing on the U.S. side I often use XO and ammo teams to pick up bazookas from vehicles to get additional AT teams.

BTW my XO in my company was pretty important in some combat situations where he often would lead one of the support elements and keep the overview where I would lead the reserve element to deliver the blow.

I wouldn't like auto-deploy for MGs since a lot of the stops are just taking cover en route to a final destination - especially in PBEM where you can't react when some unexpected threat pops up. And the penalty for packing up would be too big.

I don't have any WW2 witness information about buddy aid - except for one of my sources - a German para who was flown out (!!) from Cassino in 1944 with a bad stomach wound (he lost some 12cm of his intestines).

Even before we started to care about losses for political reasons (e.g. before 1989) it was a fact that a WIA was worse for a small unit than a KIA since it would deviate at least some of the combat power to buddy aid. Buddy aid was an important part of unit cohesion - maybe a bit different to WW2 where you had replacements which increased anonymity (I don't know - I speculate) we worked in the same teams over quite some period of time. So to take care for each other was part of the survival strategy of the small unit.

[womble]

I want them to auto-deploy at the end of any move order, or when I cancel an existing move. The game could retain the ability to not deploy, by clicking the button from down to up. I don't think I'd use it much, though.

Also, any deployable weapon should autodeploy whenever it is idle, if it is not deployed.

I disagree. Deployed weapons take time to pack up. Sometimes you're only stopping for a breather or for coordination purposes. I certainly would rather this was under my control than not.

As to merging ammo bearers into a 2-squad splittable unit, that's a limitation of the crew-served weapon engine, currently; ammo bearers as a separate team is a workaround with some useful side-effects (they can be sent away to get more ammo, or tasked with different fire targets) and some micromanagement burden. I'd probably split the bearars off anyway, so I'd not notice the difference Merging something like a US HMG squad into a single team could end up with 9 pTruppen trying to cram themselves into one Action Spot... Not so good - there's already issues with 6/7 man German HMG teams being too crowded together.

[Wreck]

Deployed weapons take time to pack up. Sometimes you're only stopping for a breather or for coordination purposes. I certainly would rather this was under my control than not.

I proposed to keep the button, which would allow you to not deploy on a stop -- just that when you set a new waypoint, by default you get a deploy. You can click to undo the default.

The point here is just what is the default you'd like: to have to click every time you want to deploy, or to have to click every time you don't want to deploy. Surely you deploy 51% of the time or more? Then reversing the default saves you clicking.

[DavidFields]

Look, I have played, and enjoyed WITP:AE, and play EU3. Complexity; I like.

But there is the subtle game design decision about what complexity adds the "interesting decisions", instead of drudgery decisions. And it also sets the scope of the simulation. If moving a company is very complex, then, for a given amount of time, it means one is going to be able to move fewer companies, or be able to mess with sub-squad tactics.

As it is, I seem to need to add "hide" commands to all my infantry movement commands, so that units go prone at the end, instead of kneeling, like sitting ducks.

I tend to move by platoon, for most longish moves with a low chance of being under fire--I will double click on a platoon leader and move all those units. Usually I have the squads sort of in a resonable relative position which would make sense if they came under fire. Then I move the company commander and support units. I find double clicking on the company commander makes too much of a mess. But, in any case, I somehow find that keeping all the ammo-bearers and XOs in the right place, and alive, in addition to splitting off scout units, makes moving a company somewhere a bit of a chore. That is not good. It was clearly a major decsion to add units in CM2 which are seldom seen in other WW2 tactical simulations, as far as I know.

I am conflicted on this issue. It will be interesting to see how this evolves as further modules are added.

[Michael Emrys]

The point here is just what is the default you'd like...

Yep.

...to have to click every time you want to deploy, or to have to click every time you don't want to deploy. Surely you deploy 51% of the time or more?

Nope. I move my units by short hops. Given what you advocate, they'd be deploying on almost every turn unless I stopped them. Don't want that.

Michael