0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
I don't know if that is any less complicated, but it seems like a good idea. One possible issue is that I think CM limits designers to 8 VLs, although I don't have a rule book handy.
But anysolution will have to be a balance between complexity and workability. We need to keep in mind that we definitely want to design for effect here; what matters is that the final result in the op layer makes sense, no matter how we come to that result,
Ha, ha , yeah I meant to mention that in my post...it may not be less complicated, but I think it does a decent job reflecting different battlefield situations. I see nothing wrong with your idea other than I personally would dread trying to count all of my pixetruppen post battle. Do you know of an easy way to do this?
Agreed, this is an awesome point of discussion! Great write-up too, thanks again Cat for doing this. Now to business...
You ask if 6% is a good number... The battalion order was to make a 'determined' attack. This means the commander was told to make a solid effort with a balanced approach between casaulties and ground taken. A determined attack is meant to be used as a more sustainable approach to attacking with the intent to fully engage the enemy and take ground (i.e. NOT skirmishing). You indicated that the current status of two of the rifles companies suggest they could be done for now, and the 3rd company is in good shape. So the commander would say "we hold for now while 3rd company rotates up to hold on our gains while the 2 rifle co's rest and reorg a bit". Keep in mind that this unit is NOT done for the day, it is only halted for now. In a few hours they could re-engage again! IMHO this scenario worked out as intended.
For review, a 'stubborn' attack is more of an all out attack with a higher tolerance for casualties. It is more of a high risk-high reward type of situation. If a unit fails to complete its objective, then it suffers additional cohesion loss and results in longer times between attacks. A unit may gain more ground in a given engagement, but is less likely to sustain over time. Units caught in a bad situation may be forced to adopt this attack!A 'cautious' attack can represent a number of different things. It can represent a probing attack, skirmishing, or a holding attack. Mechanically they all work the same, but the situation and commander's intent is why they represent different things.
From an analytical perspective, perhaps more risks could have been taken with the armor that could have lessened risk to the infantry. In other words, perhaps the loss of a few tanks could have resulted in less overall casualties sustained and the attack could have been sustained longer? PLEASE DO NOT read this as criticism, I am just trying to throw out some analysis. I say this from a historical perspective, because tank-infantry-engineer teams spearheaded the assaults and led to notable armor loss. OTOH, the armor provided confidence to the foot troops and a steel shield to a certain degree. German LMG's couldn't open up without the fear of an immediate deadly response.
The issue is that from a CM player perspective you are no where near done! You are looking at all this combat power and thinking "I am just getting started here!" What we need to do is convince the good folks at BFC to make it so we can either A) edit an on-going scenario, or B) export information from a scenario so a new scenario can be created in a rather seamless manner. I will add that there is nothing stopping you guys from playing it out further if you want, even if the campaign portion has been satisfied.
I have some thoughts on additional options, but I will stop for now because I want to hear thoughts and suggestions from you all. There is lots to consider with this discussion.
Thanks for letting me be involved it was fun even though it was time consuming. I'd do it again.
It will really be a mind set change for playing CM - which I don't mind at all.
So, my tactics were just as you described. The infantry hunted for targets and the tanks did the heavy lifting of killing them. I think that was executed pretty well. If I was more aggressive moving my tanks I don't think I would have gained much but instead might have lost more. What I probably could do better is be less aggressive with my infantry. Two guys could be risked in unknown terrain and get the same benefit of risking a team of 6 but the consequences of things going sideways would be less.
Agreed the kind of features you will want is the kind of report that we see at the end screen in a data file plus the ability to save the map as it is at any point in the battle. Ideally it would be nice to also have automatic starting and ending of battles based on criteria like 6% causalities.I am thinking here that the ToO game starts the game by launching CM with what ever inputs are needed (perhaps its just a scenario perhaps more) and the CM game plays out and when one side or the other hits their casualty limit CM ends and passes back the data to ToO (no CM users seeing an end screen or the other sides forces please).One could even see a case like this where the next battle in the day was nothing more than starting the CM battle again from the same place.Picture, in this case as you said, the operational player can decide now if they want the Battalion to hold its position and do something else for the rest of the day - in which case the next battle might be a fresh start from a similar place or not if the operational layer changes. Or could just be continue with the fight for more of the day.
BTW I'll talk with @Mad Mike and we may well continue a bit longer just cause it's fun.
This is interesting stuff. Thanks for the clearer picture of how this could work.
I can see your point regarding armor and other equipment. I had worried that players might lead with the panzers in order to stretch the casualty thresholds, but I guess that sacrificing armour will have some pretty negative effects as the operation goes on, so caveat emptor to those using that particular tactic!
I do worry, however, that we will have to jig something for less granular systems like ASL and WiF - basically if you only have a company, and then lose a squad (as in ASL, for example), you've basically lost around 10% of your forces right there, which might lead to some pretty short (and not very fun) engagements. I tried to deal with this in two ways, one by instituting a mechanic that allows a side to try and avoid the engagement thresholds (within limits) if they think it's worth the cost, and second by allowing a chance that casualties might be resurrected after battle - walking wounded, hiding in a corner, got lost, etc.
Again, a lot of this will come out in the wash as testing goes on...