* *

Translations for our friends from around the world...and beyond.

Click on banner for Theater of Operations website

Save

Author Topic: Battle of St. Andre de l'Epine  (Read 5527 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline choppinlt

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 264
  • T.O.O. Developer
    • Buckeye Battle Group
Re: Battle of St. Andre de l'Epine
« Reply #15 on: November 14, 2016, 09:40:31 PM »
Mad Mike, the setup looks great, and exactly what I had in mind. There is one small detail though; 7 and 9 should be flipped, other than that it looks like it should be good to go.

The intent for the Germans is to give no ground willingly. They are willing to take higher casualties to yield less ground. This is far different than being suicidal...while that seems obvious it can be a fine to balance in a game like this.

My calculations show the Americans advancing 200-400m in about 2 hours and 15 minutes before the attack runs out of steam. Clearly this can vary a little, but the Americans casualties should be around 4-6% total casualties (up to 6 tanks being lost) before the battle is called off... or the Germans shouldn't lose more than 20%. Theoretically the Germans should be around 10%. The distance advanced isn't merely the furthest advance by any unit. It represents phase lines that have been cleared of meaningul resistance (i.e. broken/isolated/straggling units don't count). Bottom line, have fun with this and tell me your thoughts and takeaways!! ;D

Offline A Canadian Cat

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 63
Re: Battle of St. Andre de l'Epine
« Reply #16 on: November 14, 2016, 10:08:51 PM »
Are you talking about the actual historical casulties or are you giving me directives to keep casulties to under 6% and the German commander to 20%.  I honestly don't think I have ever accomplished anything with 6% casualties.  Yikes.

Offline choppinlt

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 264
  • T.O.O. Developer
    • Buckeye Battle Group
Re: Battle of St. Andre de l'Epine
« Reply #17 on: November 15, 2016, 02:41:19 AM »
That is a very fair question, and the best way I can respond is this... As context, TO computes this engagement with the results I showed below (5% and 10% over about 2 hours and 15 minutes of combat). Let me revise this to roughly 9% and 17% respectively due to CM only using combat troops (i.e. no cooks, supply, comm, MP's, medical troops, etc are represented in CM). So the American objective is to advance and control up to 1000m while sustaining acceptable casualty levels. Based on the context I gave, I have no realistic expectation that your advance will achieve 1000m before reaching what is considered unacceptable levels in real life. My preference is to try and keep casualty levels in the realm of reasonable. IF casualty thresholds are significantly exceeded then I can "regulate" results accordingly.

For further context, when opposing infantry companies of roughly equal strength are actively engaging in combat, they are likely to see 1-2% casualties per hour! If you hit three, then that is considered pretty heavy. Clearly there are special circumstances and lots of variables, but this a good rough starting point.

Does this answer your question? Further questions?

Offline A Canadian Cat

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 63
Re: Battle of St. Andre de l'Epine
« Reply #18 on: November 15, 2016, 04:32:38 AM »
Sure - we will see how things play out...

Offline choppinlt

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 264
  • T.O.O. Developer
    • Buckeye Battle Group
Re: Battle of St. Andre de l'Epine
« Reply #19 on: November 15, 2016, 02:45:50 PM »
This sort of aspect requires a paradigm shift for tactical players. In CM we have specific objectives that determine success or failure in a given scenario. We then go about expending every resource available to achieve these objectives, and we are typically not concerned about long term consequences. The mindset is "achieve your objective or bust". That is not the case in real life where troops will start to lose their offensive mindset at some point while engaging the enemy. I'm not trying to lecture anyone, just explaining some of the concepts at play.  :) So let me say this, if Cat's forces advance and control 300m of the defensive area, this can be considered as success for the Americans. Advancing 400m would be considered exceeding expectations.

For the Germans, they are trying to make the Americans pay for every inch they take. So they are resisting like crazy, but they MUST be mindful not to break. Breaking is considered a horrible loss, allowing greater than a 400m advance is considered a less than satisfactory. Allowing 200m or less of an advance is can be considered a victory, but again the Germans need to make sure they establish a layered defense to prevent being busted wide open. As you can start to see "tactical victory" is relative to your perspective.  ;)

This is the first time I have actually converted to CM, so I want your feedback, thoughts, and ideas on how to handle different situations we come across.  ;D

Hmmm, this discussion has made me start to think of some tweaks under the hood regarding troop condition and its effects... but that is for another time and place.

Offline A Canadian Cat

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 63
Re: Battle of St. Andre de l'Epine
« Reply #20 on: November 15, 2016, 03:02:20 PM »
Spot on.  The mind set change is non trivial.  Stopping the objectives or bust mentality is one of the reasons I want a layer like this!  I have thought about it quit a bit however; honestly I am just now getting my head around what keeping casulties to 5% - 10% really means. :D I have to remember that in RL and in this setup the defence is in the same boat.  If they take to many casulties they risk negative effects beyond just loosing the ground.

This is going to be interesting.  I started the process of setting up my OOB - and sent you a couple of emails with nuts and bolts questions.  Once I am done that I'll share the "final" file and let you have a look before we get going.

More questions popped up over night... What are the rules regarding pre-planned bombardments?  None, only the attacker, only part of the assigned artillery.  Also are there guidelines for setting reinforcements?  The force is large and the space is small so for my own sanity there will be reinforcements I'm just wondering if there are some operational level guidelines I should consider.

Offline choppinlt

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 264
  • T.O.O. Developer
    • Buckeye Battle Group
Re: Battle of St. Andre de l'Epine
« Reply #21 on: November 15, 2016, 03:54:13 PM »
Correct, the sum of all the tactical engagements starts to create a much bigger picture of events. So you can literally “win” most of the tactical engagements, but put yourself on a position to lose the war…or in this case the operation! I am really excited about you guys playing this out and helping to iron out a process.  ;D

Sounds great about the file! Regarding your questions; pre-planned bombardments…this is a tactical player preference in my opinion. HOWEVER I feel that the attackers own the initiative and therefore are always allowed pre-planned bombardments. I am tempted to say the defenders can do it, but with a minimum 5 minute delay. The attackers have full flexibility to deploy forces off board and add them as reinforcements at a preplanned time and place solely of their choosing, and this can help mitigate traffic jams and other dispersal concerns early on. I also see the benefit of just saying no preplanned bombardments by the defender at all. Furthermore, I think TRP’s should NOT be allowed in the attack deployment zone, but are free to be place the anywhere else.

Speaking of TRP’s, the Germans may have 1 TRP in the 7 deployment zone, and 1 TRP in the 9 deployment zone. 8 has not been in place long enough to register any arty.

OK, what else ya got?  :)

Offline A Canadian Cat

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 63
Re: Battle of St. Andre de l'Epine
« Reply #22 on: November 15, 2016, 06:43:44 PM »
Correct, the sum of all the tactical engagements starts to create a much bigger picture of events. So you can literally “win” most of the tactical engagements, but put yourself on a position to lose the war…or in this case the operation! I am really excited about you guys playing this out and helping to iron out a process.  ;D
Yeah this is going to be fun and hopefully helpful for you.  I can imagine you wanting to write some simple documentation about how to play the tactical battles out in other games.


Sounds great about the file! Regarding your questions; pre-planned bombardments…this is a tactical player preference in my opinion. HOWEVER I feel that the attackers own the initiative and therefore are always allowed pre-planned bombardments.
+1 BTW in terms of the file I just got word from @Mad Mike that he has a few additional tweaks he wants to make so when I get the V4 file up there you are free to look but be aware that the game will be waiting until a V5 version is done by him.

I am tempted to say the defenders can do it, but with a minimum 5 minute delay. The attackers have full flexibility to deploy forces off board and add them as reinforcements at a preplanned time and place solely of their choosing, and this can help mitigate traffic jams and other dispersal concerns early on.
Humm this I am not totally sure about. Even if the attacker can do that the set up zone is still a choke point. I am not sure how big a problem this will be for CM players but consider this, not really, corner case: The defender sets a light and maximum barrage at an important cross road in the setup area.  Something that will drop multi hundred rounds over the course of 20-30 minutes.  In real life it might catch some lead elements but follow on elements would not continue to arrive into the bombardment.  That kind of bombardment would be an useful delaying tactic that the operational level game could simulate better than in CM.

I also see the benefit of just saying no preplanned bombardments by the defender at all.
That would be my vote since they should frequently get TRPs

Furthermore, I think TRP’s should NOT be allowed in the attack deployment zone, but are free to be place the anywhere else.
+1

Speaking of TRP’s, the Germans may have 1 TRP in the 7 deployment zone, and 1 TRP in the 9 deployment zone. 8 has not been in place long enough to register any arty.
Yes, this kind of thing seems like the way to set this - along with other fortifications based on the time in place.  @Mad Mike - did you see that.

OK, what else ya got?  :)
Nothing at the moment but give me a few mintues :D

Offline Mad Mike

  • New member
  • *
  • Posts: 16
Re: Battle of St. Andre de l'Epine
« Reply #23 on: November 15, 2016, 08:08:51 PM »

Furthermore, I think TRP’s should NOT be allowed in the attack deployment zone, but are free to be place the anywhere else.
+1

Speaking of TRP’s, the Germans may have 1 TRP in the 7 deployment zone, and 1 TRP in the 9 deployment zone. 8 has not been in place long enough to register any arty.
Yes, this kind of thing seems like the way to set this - along with other fortifications based on the time in place.  @Mad Mike - did you see that.


Yep, saw both and will naturally adhere to it.
I will switch the 7. and the 9. companies in their zones, look at fortifications in those two setup zones and add the two TRPs, as well as some exit zones.

I'm also in this to play something different, not always these all-or-nothing wasteful affairs that are usually CM battles. Fun sometimes, but the (operational) context is usually missing. So for me that is the great hope, that we get something which takes the realism of the CM tactical battles into "operational realism" (for lack of another description).
The campaign system in CMx2 is not good enough for this for two reasons:

1. No multiplayer, AI too suicidal.

2. Reinforcements / replacements are impemented in an abstracted, quick-fix way.

By the way, @choppinlt, could you provide me with your email (by PM, if you like) so that I can add you to our dropbox for this battle?
This way, you could take a look directly at what we're doing. I think we could even provide you with our passwords once the battle has started.

Offline choppinlt

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 264
  • T.O.O. Developer
    • Buckeye Battle Group
Re: Battle of St. Andre de l'Epine
« Reply #24 on: November 15, 2016, 08:31:22 PM »
Quote
By the way, @choppinlt, could you provide me with your email (by PM, if you like) so that I can add you to our dropbox for this battle?
This way, you could take a look directly at what we're doing. I think we could even provide you with our passwords once the battle has started.

Roger that Mad Mike!

Quote
Humm this I am not totally sure about. Even if the attacker can do that the set up zone is still a choke point. I am not sure how big a problem this will be for CM players but consider this, not really, corner case: The defender sets a light and maximum barrage at an important cross road in the setup area.  Something that will drop multi hundred rounds over the course of 20-30 minutes.  In real life it might catch some lead elements but follow on elements would not continue to arrive into the bombardment.  That kind of bombardment would be an useful delaying tactic that the operational level game could simulate better than in CM.

Cat, I totally get it. I agree that this can easily be "gamed", OTOH players may want to do this for whatever reason. Furthermore, yes the intent is for TO to stop right as the first unit crosses the Line of Departure, so this is where the tactical level takes over. So arty fire in to assembly areas is supposed to be represented in TO.

Offline A Canadian Cat

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 63
Re: Battle of St. Andre de l'Epine
« Reply #25 on: November 15, 2016, 09:00:34 PM »
Cool - to me this is all part of discovering how the integration could / should / might work so good discussion. 

Which reminds me of one more question that just occurred.  Are all units at full strength at this point? 

Offline choppinlt

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 264
  • T.O.O. Developer
    • Buckeye Battle Group
Re: Battle of St. Andre de l'Epine
« Reply #26 on: November 15, 2016, 09:33:01 PM »
No they are not. You should be able to see this in the OOB pics, but the American units are at 80% headcount. You will also see that the tank companies are missing several tanks. I believe they have 27 or 28 tanks at their disposal. Let me know if you have further questions, or if something isn't clear.

Offline A Canadian Cat

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 63
Re: Battle of St. Andre de l'Epine
« Reply #27 on: November 15, 2016, 10:08:21 PM »
Oops glad I asked I missed that.  I did notice that the tank companies are short platoons.  Is that to represent the lowered vehicle count?

Offline choppinlt

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 264
  • T.O.O. Developer
    • Buckeye Battle Group
Re: Battle of St. Andre de l'Epine
« Reply #28 on: November 15, 2016, 10:56:18 PM »
Yep!  ;D

Offline A Canadian Cat

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 63
Re: Battle of St. Andre de l'Epine
« Reply #29 on: November 16, 2016, 02:32:55 PM »
OK head count fixed.  Unit names are set and I created a reinforcement plan.  The delay is that I have to deploy / setup the units that are coming in a reinforcements.  I spent a couple of hours but did not quite get finished. Sorry for the delay.