Dogs Of War Vu

Network of Friends => Theater of Operations: World at War => Topic started by: choppinlt on November 12, 2016, 07:31:21 PM

Title: Battle of St. Andre de l'Epine
Post by: choppinlt on November 12, 2016, 07:31:21 PM
Sorry, I am trying to create this info as fast as I can, so it is all a bit hurried. Feel free to take some liberties and interpolate regarding setup where my explanation may be lacking. I took screenies of the setup stuff. The below shows the battle area in the white box. The straight black line is the start of the defensive setup zone. The black squigly lines show the setup areas of each of the companies. Once the battle commences, they are free to move as the commander likes.

The battlefield should be bocage with a village. The dimensions are 1200m wide and 1500m deep. The US has a 200m deployment zone and can have units arrive as reinforcements as they wish. That means there will be about a 300m no man's land to start. 7/9 and 9/9 have prepared positions, which means they will have wire, mines, obstacles, trenches foxholes, and a wooden bunker. 8/9 will only have foxholes. Let me know if you have questions!

Battle Area
(http://i736.photobucket.com/albums/xx4/choppinlt/St%20Andre%20de%20%20lEpine_zps8t2pzfum.png)

Conditions
(http://i736.photobucket.com/albums/xx4/choppinlt/Env%20Cond_zpsw1tvnj4w.png)

FSJ OOB
(http://i736.photobucket.com/albums/xx4/choppinlt/FSJ%20OOB_zpsoprpyeuw.png)

US OOB1
(http://i736.photobucket.com/albums/xx4/choppinlt/US%20OOB1_zpsc0aknxtr.png)

US OOB2
(http://i736.photobucket.com/albums/xx4/choppinlt/US%20OOB2_zpsnnautdjl.png)
Title: Re: Battle of St. Andre de l'Epine
Post by: choppinlt on November 13, 2016, 03:17:59 PM
Quick follow-up, the German companies in the OOB are in order 7,8,9 even though they say 1,2,3. As you can see 8 Kompanie is responsible for most of the defensive zone, but like I said before the Germans are free to do whatever they want once the battle starts. This also means that all of the prepared positions are in the 7 and 9 setup zones, with 8 only getting foxholes. Another thing I noticed is that I removed the trucks for the FSJ(except for guns), but the screenie is showing them as motorized. Feel free to keep the trucks, but it is assumed that most of the transport was off map.

This marks the major debut of rhino equipment, so some of the American tanks are equipped with this.

Like I said, I think you can tell the major details in creating the forces with what I have shown in the screen shots. Also, feel free to add multiple exit points for both sides on the map. Let me know if there are questions!  :)
Title: Re: Battle of St. Andre de l'Epine
Post by: Mad Mike on November 13, 2016, 03:34:09 PM
OK, basic setup is understood. I'm in contact with Ian about the map we should use, once that is decided, we can add the units and should be good to go.

For the map, I've used the map Hill 192 which seems to based on original terrain around St. Lo.
I would make it slightly deeper than 1500m, to have some more room for deployment and movement.

Also, about the German OOB:

Ther should be one company with 1x Platoon and the other two companies will have 2 x Platoons each, correct?
Title: Re: Battle of St. Andre de l'Epine
Post by: Christian Knudsen on November 13, 2016, 04:50:12 PM
Hey I think that's my map!  And it is created as near as I could get it (based on Google Earth and the 1947 aerial surveys) for the terrain just to the east of the TO battle area.  In fact, the hamlet of Cloville, on the very east border of the Engagement area, is on the Hill 192 map.  I hope you guys enjoy using it!
Title: Re: Battle of St. Andre de l'Epine
Post by: choppinlt on November 13, 2016, 06:18:07 PM
Ha CK, small world eh?!  :)

MM, Feel free to alter the deployment zones and make them deeper if you wish. You can also make the no man's land smaller. Regarding the OOB, yes that should work. I also removed a squad from 2nd plt of 3 Komp, giving it only 2 squads. This OOB reflects that 7/9 and 9/9 are supporting 2 different engagements. In other words they are fighting 3/116 too and their forces are split between the two.

Let me know if you have further questions!
Title: Re: Battle of St. Andre de l'Epine
Post by: Mad Mike on November 13, 2016, 07:25:15 PM
Hey I think that's my map!  And it is created as near as I could get it (based on Google Earth and the 1947 aerial surveys) for the terrain just to the east of the TO battle area.  In fact, the hamlet of Cloville, on the very east border of the Engagement area, is on the Hill 192 map.  I hope you guys enjoy using it!

Christian, thanks for making this map, it looks great and should be very suitable for this battle, I hope.  :)
Title: Re: Battle of St. Andre de l'Epine
Post by: Mad Mike on November 13, 2016, 07:39:20 PM
I'm currently looking at buidling the OOB for my German side and am just trying to make sense of the setup.

Usually, a Fallschirmjäger Regiment had three Battalions, I. II. and III., each with 4 companies (1-4), (5-8) and (9-12).
It also had an Anti-Tank (13) and Mortar (14) company.
Companies 4, 8 and 12 were the MG companies, in this example "4 Company (Weapons)".

The numbers between what is used on your ToO map and what I get as an OOB in CM are difficult to reconcile, for example:

- 7, 8 and 9 companies are from two different battalions, the II. and the III.
- 8 company would normally be the MG company of the II. Battalion, not a rifle company
- Which ToO-unit does the "4 Company (Weapons)" unit in the CM OOB represent?

Not trying to be difficult, we could still go ahead with 7, 8 and 9 and any other number for the "4 Company (Weapons)".
The overall command could be called "KG Mad Mike" instead of a Fallschirmjäger Battalion.
Just trying to make sense of it all.  :)
Title: Re: Battle of St. Andre de l'Epine
Post by: Christian Knudsen on November 13, 2016, 10:55:29 PM
OB is a massive, massive issue, and is probably one of the biggest obstacles to designing operations, along with getting the terrain effects right. 

FJ units in particular are hard to nail down.  For example, it seems that the 3FJ Div did not have its organic FlaK battalion in this time period, for whatever reason.  Sources can be hard to come by, and the lower you want to go, the less clear they are, for obvious reasons.

We also have to think about how to go about translating OBs for other potential games that might be used as Engagement resolution methods.  I have taken a starting stab at this for ASL, but work needs to be done for other systems like Flames of War, etc.
Title: Re: Battle of St. Andre de l'Epine
Post by: choppinlt on November 14, 2016, 03:10:09 AM
Mad Mike, it was only a matter of time before someone called me on my mistake... :-[ I was well under way with the scenario when I realized my mistake with my numbering of companies. Since I knew what it all meant I just rolled with it. So what we have represented are infantry companies 1-9. 1,2,3 is I battalion, 4,5,6, II battalion, and you are commanding III battalion (7,8,9)...or at least parts of it since there is another engagement happening that involves them as well. The 14 company is providing fire support with 1 battery. You also have a flak battery , and a battery of 105's both attached from divisional support. The AT company appears to have been distributed among the battalions, and is not explicitly represented on the TO map. I *believe* the schrecks are accounted for in the CM TOE for FSJ. If not then feel free to add some! Oh, and KG Mad Mike it is!  ;D I think this will actually help with clarification, so it serves a real purpose!

ToO Game Design Note: battalion weapons companies are not represented as independent companies. It's platoons and subsections are fully accounted for, but they are assigned to one of the infantry companies. I think all weapons company sections are assigned to 9/9 at the moment. And yes, these sections can be moved around and re-parceled within the battalion infantry companies.

Once we get something automated, it will be FAR easier to generate accurate and highly detailed OOB's. As it stands now I am trying to do it all by hand, so there will be inevitable mistakes. So if something doesn't make sense or you otherwise have questions, please ask!

CK, my recollection is that they had flak batteries available by July 11. Let me know if you find out otherwise, but I thought there were 88's involved in this area. If not, then there are for this scenario I guess!  ;)
Title: Re: Battle of St. Andre de l'Epine
Post by: A Canadian Cat on November 14, 2016, 02:56:02 PM
OK finally getting here.  I was not able to actually fire up the game this morning so please excuse my questions that would be answerable if I had just fired up the game :D .

So, I hear from @Mad Mike that he has setup his order of battle - which I am guessing is the V2 scenario file.  Am I correct in saying that the US order of battle is not set yet in that file?  and If that is the case then @choppinlt I cannot read the screen shots you posted of the US OOB.  Even when I click on them to show them "full size" there has been some scaling and I cannot read the words clearly.  If I need to setup the OOB can you post full sized screens or send me links via PM.
Title: Re: Battle of St. Andre de l'Epine
Post by: choppinlt on November 14, 2016, 04:03:51 PM
Cat, I'm not certain about the status of the American OOB. Unless we hear otherwise in the mean time, I will get those pics to you. It will be a few hours before I will have access to those files, but I will send them to you if necessary.
Title: Re: Battle of St. Andre de l'Epine
Post by: A Canadian Cat on November 14, 2016, 06:35:57 PM
Thank you.  For me I might get a chance tonight to look at the scenario file but if not it will be early tomorrow EST.
Title: Re: Battle of St. Andre de l'Epine
Post by: Mad Mike on November 14, 2016, 07:43:49 PM
Thank you.  For me I might get a chance tonight to look at the scenario file but if not it will be early tomorrow EST.

I have now also uploaded V3 with some more purchases and preliminary (rough) deployment of the German troops.

The file does not contain any American units yet.
Title: Re: Battle of St. Andre de l'Epine
Post by: Mad Mike on November 14, 2016, 07:59:24 PM
Mad Mike, it was only a matter of time before someone called me on my mistake... :-[ I was well under way with the scenario when I realized my mistake with my numbering of companies. Since I knew what it all meant I just rolled with it. So what we have represented are infantry companies 1-9. 1,2,3 is I battalion, 4,5,6, II battalion, and you are commanding III battalion (7,8,9)...or at least parts of it since there is another engagement happening that involves them as well. The 14 company is providing fire support with 1 battery. You also have a flak battery , and a battery of 105's both attached from divisional support. The AT company appears to have been distributed among the battalions, and is not explicitly represented on the TO map. I *believe* the schrecks are accounted for in the CM TOE for FSJ. If not then feel free to add some! Oh, and KG Mad Mike it is!  ;D I think this will actually help with clarification, so it serves a real purpose!

ToO Game Design Note: battalion weapons companies are not represented as independent companies. It's platoons and subsections are fully accounted for, but they are assigned to one of the infantry companies. I think all weapons company sections are assigned to 9/9 at the moment. And yes, these sections can be moved around and re-parceled within the battalion infantry companies.

Once we get something automated, it will be FAR easier to generate accurate and highly detailed OOB's. As it stands now I am trying to do it all by hand, so there will be inevitable mistakes. So if something doesn't make sense or you otherwise have questions, please ask!

CK, my recollection is that they had flak batteries available by July 11. Let me know if you find out otherwise, but I thought there were 88's involved in this area. If not, then there are for this scenario I guess!  ;)

No problem at all, I'm quite happy to go with anything you suggested, so KG Mad Mike it is from now on.

My basic setup on this map would be like this:

(http://i144.photobucket.com/albums/r167/Mad_Mike_FGM/St.%20Andre%20de%20lEpine%20Setup_zpsy0oa5uqi.png~original)

I've split the heavy weapons between the 8. and the 9. companies. 8. company will only have foxholes, while the others will have better prepared positions.

Hope this is what you had in mind for the approximate defensive setup.

I will let Ian do his OOB first, then we can still have some finishing touches like exit zones and objectives (not sure if we need them or if we just play it without objectives .. would be quite the novel concept).
Title: Re: Battle of St. Andre de l'Epine
Post by: Mad Mike on November 14, 2016, 08:32:14 PM
OB is a massive, massive issue, and is probably one of the biggest obstacles to designing operations, along with getting the terrain effects right. 

FJ units in particular are hard to nail down.  For example, it seems that the 3FJ Div did not have its organic FlaK battalion in this time period, for whatever reason.  Sources can be hard to come by, and the lower you want to go, the less clear they are, for obvious reasons.

We also have to think about how to go about translating OBs for other potential games that might be used as Engagement resolution methods.  I have taken a starting stab at this for ASL, but work needs to be done for other systems like Flames of War, etc.

Agreed. I'm now frequently amazed by how little actually seems to be known, especially on the German side.
Just yesterday, when looking for the OOB of the Fallschirmjäger Regiment 9. Or one example from a couple of days ago, when I was looking for a solid OOB of the German side in "Market Garden" (for campaign purposes on the Few Good Mens "Highway to Hell" campaign). I couldn't really find one. The best one I could find is still in my copy of "It never snows in September", and this is sketchy at best. It shows the units involved, but does not provide any clear picture of the organisation.

I think one of the main reasons for doing ETO 1944-45 over and over again in wargames is that it is the best documented part of the wider World War 2. It is actually quite easy to find information, partly even for the German side. But hey, that is only my personal theory.  ;)
Title: Re: Battle of St. Andre de l'Epine
Post by: choppinlt 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
Title: Re: Battle of St. Andre de l'Epine
Post by: A Canadian Cat 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.
Title: Re: Battle of St. Andre de l'Epine
Post by: choppinlt 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?
Title: Re: Battle of St. Andre de l'Epine
Post by: A Canadian Cat on November 15, 2016, 04:32:38 AM
Sure - we will see how things play out...
Title: Re: Battle of St. Andre de l'Epine
Post by: choppinlt 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.
Title: Re: Battle of St. Andre de l'Epine
Post by: A Canadian Cat 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.
Title: Re: Battle of St. Andre de l'Epine
Post by: choppinlt 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?  :)
Title: Re: Battle of St. Andre de l'Epine
Post by: A Canadian Cat 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
Title: Re: Battle of St. Andre de l'Epine
Post by: Mad Mike 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.
Title: Re: Battle of St. Andre de l'Epine
Post by: choppinlt 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.
Title: Re: Battle of St. Andre de l'Epine
Post by: A Canadian Cat 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? 
Title: Re: Battle of St. Andre de l'Epine
Post by: choppinlt 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.
Title: Re: Battle of St. Andre de l'Epine
Post by: A Canadian Cat 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?
Title: Re: Battle of St. Andre de l'Epine
Post by: choppinlt on November 15, 2016, 10:56:18 PM
Yep!  ;D
Title: Re: Battle of St. Andre de l'Epine
Post by: A Canadian Cat 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.

Title: Re: Battle of St. Andre de l'Epine
Post by: A Canadian Cat on November 17, 2016, 12:28:51 PM
V4 of the scenario is in the drop box folder.  @choppinlt please check it over.  @Mad Mike go for your last adjustments.  Once I hear the all clear form you guys we can kick this off.
Title: Re: Battle of St. Andre de l'Epine
Post by: choppinlt on November 17, 2016, 02:52:53 PM
Cat, I am currently unable to access the file, but I will do so later today when I will have access to it.  I don't think this will slow things down much, especially if Mad Mike has some final tweaks. Let me know if you guys need anything else at this point.
Title: Re: Battle of St. Andre de l'Epine
Post by: Mad Mike on November 17, 2016, 08:52:44 PM
I've uploaded V5, with my final partition of forces and fortifications. They are not finally deployed yet, but I would do this during the game.

I have admittely no good feeling about the fortifications, if I bought too many or not enough. @choppinlt if you take a look, maybe you can give me some feedback on the amount of fortifications I currently have (some of them are not in their final position, obvioulsy, for example all the foxholes and bunkers).
Title: Re: Battle of St. Andre de l'Epine
Post by: choppinlt on November 18, 2016, 04:17:51 AM
@Mad Mike, I sent you a PM to help preserve OPSEC. I can say publicly that you can add more fortifications in places, but otherwise it looks like you have your forces selected properly. Like you said you can finalize your setup and add some things according to my message and we are ready to go.  :)

@Canadian Cat, your stuff all seems good to me.  :)
Title: Re: Battle of St. Andre de l'Epine
Post by: A Canadian Cat on November 18, 2016, 11:45:01 AM
Cool - @Made Mike - since you have a final edit to do feel free to kick this off when you are ready.  Let me know.
Title: Re: Battle of St. Andre de l'Epine
Post by: Mad Mike on November 18, 2016, 07:55:49 PM
Cool - @Made Mike - since you have a final edit to do feel free to kick this off when you are ready.  Let me know.

@Canadian Cat

OK, final adjustments made. I've created the first file for our game, it is in the dropbox. Hope Iron skill level is ok.

Should we two separate DAR threads over at the Battlefront forum?
Title: Re: Battle of St. Andre de l'Epine
Post by: A Canadian Cat on November 18, 2016, 09:06:05 PM
Yeah I can deal with Iron :-)  Yes, I think that two separate threads on the BFC forum would be great.
Title: Re: Battle of St. Andre de l'Epine
Post by: A Canadian Cat on November 21, 2016, 03:15:03 PM
We are under way. A couple of notes: I will be starting a AAR thread soon, I will link it here when I do. It will take a bit to create some initial graphics, opening discussion and setup the document. I have a lot of things going on but I want to do a decent job on the AAR so it will have a reasonably high priority but not top of the list, I'm afraid. I really do not want to get into a place where I have a tonne of turns to write up like a huge bow wave in front of me so for a little while here I'll be moving forward in fits and starts. Aka expect delays for a short while.
Title: Re: Battle of St. Andre de l'Epine
Post by: choppinlt on November 21, 2016, 07:04:12 PM
Thanks Cat for the update! I am excited to see what you guys come up with.  ;D In the mean time, i have calculated all the battle results. So I am updating results battle results very soon as we await your battle results.
Title: Re: Battle of St. Andre de l'Epine
Post by: choppinlt on November 29, 2016, 02:05:11 PM
@Canadian Cat and @Mad Mike any updates on the battle?  :)
Title: Re: Battle of St. Andre de l'Epine
Post by: A Canadian Cat on November 29, 2016, 02:50:08 PM
It seems the German lines are a little further than I expected.  Progress is slow and no contact yet. I am hoping to get the AAR thread up and running some time to day or tomorrow morning.

So, not very exciting yet...
Title: Re: Battle of St. Andre de l'Epine
Post by: Asid on November 29, 2016, 03:49:31 PM
I look forward to the update.

Thanks for doing this.

Regards
Title: Re: Battle of St. Andre de l'Epine
Post by: Mad Mike on November 29, 2016, 09:15:08 PM
Yep, no direct contact yet, but some big artillery is falling  :o
Title: Re: Battle of St. Andre de l'Epine
Post by: A Canadian Cat on November 30, 2016, 02:56:01 PM
LOL - hopefully on someone's head?

Yeah never got to the write up yesterday or this morning.  Need more hours in the day.  But so far not very interesting so no one is missing anything.
Title: Re: Battle of St. Andre de l'Epine
Post by: choppinlt on December 15, 2016, 08:09:43 PM
A potential downside to playing out battles is that it can take a fair amount of time to resolve.  :-\ In this case we have a large battle being resolved PBEM, and since @Mad Mike and @Canadian Cat are on 2 different continents this is not a swift way to resolve a battle. OTOH, the cool thing is that they have the ability to resolve the battle using Combat Mission while in 2 different continents!  8) So I have been taking full advantage of this "pause" and accomplishing other tasks, but I think we may want to break in here to keep the scenario moving foward. We can "normalize" these battle results once they are done and make adjustments as necessary. Not coincidentally, i would like to implement a similar feature for players to use in TO. So I am going to get the next turn going while we wait for this battle to play out. Regardless of the actual battle results, going through this process has been greatly beneficial. This is the first time that I have actually converted a TO battle to CM, and this will provide lots of useful information going forward. In the mean time, we will wait for any juicy details from @Mad Mike and @Canadian Cat!
Title: Re: Battle of St. Andre de l'Epine
Post by: A Canadian Cat on December 16, 2016, 03:25:21 PM
Which I have not started writing yet.  But I'll get there.

In the mean time I look forward to finding out how well I will do :D
Title: Re: Battle of St. Andre de l'Epine
Post by: Asid on December 16, 2016, 03:32:49 PM
Which I have not started writing yet.  But I'll get there.

Is it done yet?  :P

I await an update :)
Title: Re: Battle of St. Andre de l'Epine
Post by: choppinlt on December 19, 2016, 04:11:42 PM
In the mean time I look forward to finding out how well I will do :D

LOL  ;D
Title: Re: Battle of St. Andre de l'Epine
Post by: A Canadian Cat on January 04, 2017, 12:23:02 PM
With vacation winding down I finally have the computer room back and I have kicked off the AAR: http://community.battlefront.com/topic/124269-theatre-of-operations-aar-the-battle-of-st-andre-de-l%E2%80%99epine/
Title: Re: Battle of St. Andre de l'Epine
Post by: choppinlt on January 05, 2017, 01:53:13 PM
Sounds great! :) I don't have BFC forum access at the moment, and I forgot to check it out last night.  >:( So I need to make sure that I check it out tonight...oh and thanks for doing this Cat!
Title: Re: Battle of St. Andre de l'Epine
Post by: choppinlt on January 06, 2017, 03:12:10 PM
Hey @Canadian Cat, I checked out the AAR last night and it is a fantastic start!  ;D This is exactly what we need to help people see the potential depth they can go in to when using TOO with any system. Once we get TOO ready, we can start to create conversion software to help streamline the process of manual battle setup and posting results. And lets not forget the automated link to CM that BFC will support (assuming TOO sells well enough to make it attactive for them to support).

So I have a particular topic to discuss with everyone. I noticed the phase lines on Cat's battle map, and they provide a great visual reference. I believe they were added as "touch" lines, correct @Canadian Cat? It would probably be best to keep the phase lines persistent on the map. The reason is that I don't want this aspect to be "gamed". In other words if someone is able to find a small gap and run a 2-man scout team touching all the phase lines, this does NOT constitute an advance in my definition. My concept of advance is occupation/control of 90% of the territory leading up to a given phase line. In other words a small pocket of troops may have been isolated/bypassed/overrun, and they don't count against forward progress. Slight skirting of a major defensive strongpoint counts for advantageous battlefield position at the tactical level and will likely lead to "advancing", but the action of skirting does not qualify by itself as an "advance". Furthermore, it could hinder the 'active defense' tactic, especially if it ended up being really successful in forcing an overextended attacker in to withdrawal. Does all of this make sense, or do I need to better illustrate what I am talking about?

In summary, I think battlemap phaselines should be peristent to allow for the ebb and flow of battle, and more accurately reflect the end state of a given engagement. Anyone, feel free to comment on this so I can read your thoughts!
Title: Re: Battle of St. Andre de l'Epine
Post by: Asid on January 06, 2017, 03:20:50 PM
Regarding phase lines

I agree with you Matt. There should be a percentage which constitutes occupation. It is very unrealistic to allow a small pocket of troops etc. to take/hold an area. What if the small pocket of troops were not spotted? They then could take the PL. Not good in my view.

DOW plays a lot of Steel Beasts Pro. We have come across a similar issue. Sometimes we have failed a mission because an extremely small number of enemy forces have remained hidden in an objective. This was despite us having overwhelming numbers on our side. What we do now is pay more attention to the percentages which constitute a victory etc.

Just my thoughts.

Regards
Title: Re: Battle of St. Andre de l'Epine
Post by: choppinlt on January 06, 2017, 06:50:11 PM
Thanks Asid!  :) Agreed, there are so many different ways this could play out. A valid defensive tactic could be to hunker down troops in a secluded area, wait for the main thrust to move ahead, then bring out the hunkered troops to raise havoc. In theory a defender may be able to take control of enough area to nullify/minimize any current gains by the attacker...or at least halt an attacker to counter the threat to their rear. OTOH, if the troops are simply hiding to escape destruction these troops won't negate gains by the attacker (assuming they stay hunkered down in their little area). I am going to assume that there will be pockets of isolated troops from time to time, but they need to effectively occupy say... 22,500m2 (150mx150m) of contiguous ground for it to count against the attacker.

This will be a bit subjective in that players will generally have to agree whether enough organized resistance remains to qualify. The 22,500m2 is meant for player context rather than a specific hard limit. For instance a hidden platoon of Panthers coming out to play poses a VERY different threat level than battered remnants of an infantry platoon.

Taking this a bit further, my initial thoughts are that organized resistance behind the front line is NOT meant to be a 'gotcha' move discovered AFTER a battle. It doesn't feel very realistic to say to a player "you only think you advanced 900m, but since I hold this secluded area it completely nullfies your advance". I think the attacker should be given notice before an engagement ends that the defenders think they have enough organized resistance to prevent advance. This way the attackers can choose to find (or not find) the troops behind their lines (assuming they are still hiding). My first thought is to have the defender make this declaration immediately before either side wishes to end an given engagement. That way the attackers have to take additional time and effort if they choose to address the enemy troops behind their lines without a 'gotcha' moment, and the defenders can opt out of making the declaration if they feel resistance is not worth the loss and just accepting the full advance of the attackers. Does all of this make sense to you guys? Again, feel free to comment and let me know your thoughts.
Title: Re: Battle of St. Andre de l'Epine
Post by: A Canadian Cat on January 09, 2017, 06:10:51 PM
Hey @Canadian Cat, I checked out the AAR last night and it is a fantastic start!  ;D This is exactly what we need to help people see the potential depth they can go in to when using TOO with any system. ...

Thank you. It is quite a bit behind and I am frustrated because I decided to use photobucket but their site has been experiencing technical difficulties over the holidays. I have been unable to get access to my pictures after spending time getting them all up there. Grrr. Either they will fix it or I will abandon them but it is slowing me down.

So I have a particular topic to discuss with everyone. I noticed the phase lines on Cat's battle map, and they provide a great visual reference. I believe they were added as "touch" lines, correct @Canadian Cat?

That is correct. I didn't put them there as anything official but for my own reference. So, good to have a fuller discussion.

It would probably be best to keep the phase lines persistent on the map. The reason is that I don't want this aspect to be "gamed". In other words if someone is able to find a small gap and run a 2-man scout team touching all the phase lines, this does NOT constitute an advance in my definition. My concept of advance is occupation/control of 90% of the territory leading up to a given phase line. In other words a small pocket of troops may have been isolated/bypassed/overrun, and they don't count against forward progress. Slight skirting of a major defensive strongpoint counts for advantageous battlefield position at the tactical level and will likely lead to "advancing", but the action of skirting does not qualify by itself as an "advance". Furthermore, it could hinder the 'active defense' tactic, especially if it ended up being really successful in forcing an overextended attacker in to withdrawal. Does all of this make sense, or do I need to better illustrate what I am talking about?

Yes, having them persist would probably be better. At the time I created them I was thinking that these shouldn't be occupy objectives and they really shouldn't but they also shouldn't be touch objectives either. I guess for the time being having them be occupy objectives so they stick around would be better.
Title: Re: Battle of St. Andre de l'Epine
Post by: A Canadian Cat on January 09, 2017, 06:23:48 PM
On the subject of what should constitute an advance. What you guys have written is valid from the defender's point of view - leaving pockets will make life difficult for the attacker to keep on going.

The flip side though is if as the attacker I encounter a strong defensive position that I can by pass I should be allowed to. If my forces know they are there and take appropriate actions to surround them then that would potentially be a good thing for me. Yes, my advance would be slower but I could force the a cut off enemy force to surrender without the cost of assaulting their positions.

Also small bands of soldiers might actually not really be much of a concern. For example if a battalion is attacking and the bypass a small platoon sized unit with out knowing it there would likely be a sizable reserve force (likely a company) that is not exactly sitting around brewing tea. That small force's window to cause problems and still get away would not be very long. And they would not be free to do as the pleased they would still be facing a company of reserves that they could run into at any moment.

Keep in mind I agree with all your points I just adding some thoughts that such pockets might not really be a big a problem for the attacker. Clearly this has to be resolved and it needs to take a balanced approach that does not just favour one side.

One possibility would be that the defender gets an opportunity to decide what the soon to be surrounded forces should do. Or what the stragglers should do. Should they hold and cause problems (which slows down the attacker or forces them to pull back from the 600m gain they thought they had to only 300m). Should bypassed platoon attempt to pull back or case behind the scenes issues (could be slowing down again or causing casulties to the reserve units).

Also should this be resolved at the tactical level in CM or once the battle is done. Or a combination. I think @asid and @choppinlt have already put forward some ideas that could certainly work.
Title: Re: Battle of St. Andre de l'Epine
Post by: choppinlt on January 11, 2017, 07:47:45 PM
The flip side though is if as the attacker I encounter a strong defensive position that I can by pass I should be allowed to. If my forces know they are there and take appropriate actions to surround them then that would potentially be a good thing for me. Yes, my advance would be slower but I could force the a cut off enemy force to surrender without the cost of assaulting their positions.
Agreed! However, we run in to problems with interpretation and transitioning to the op level. TO is not built to allow of contested areas/pockets. It pretty much just shows the FEBA (Forward Edge of the Battle Area), even though the reality is that enemy forces are likely to be entertwined in places. This is why I gave suggestions above about giving players options. Upon battle completion the defender can choose to forgo resisting with their forces in the enemy rear. This keeps the defending forces in tact while the attacker is allowed to retain their full advance without penalty of organized resistance to their rear. OTOH, if the defender doesn't want to give up that easy (and they control enough continguous territory), then it is up to the attacker on what to do. They can simply just bombard the heck out of the defenders, assault, both, or just ignore and sacrifice some of their forward movement due to organized enemy to the rear that controls enough contiguous territory.

Also small bands of soldiers might actually not really be much of a concern. For example if a battalion is attacking and the bypass a small platoon sized unit with out knowing it there would likely be a sizable reserve force (likely a company) that is not exactly sitting around brewing tea. That small force's window to cause problems and still get away would not be very long. And they would not be free to do as the pleased they would still be facing a company of reserves that they could run into at any moment.
Agreed! That is the risk that a commander would take if they allow a force to remain behind, or if they had troops get overrun/isolated.

One possibility would be that the defender gets an opportunity to decide what the soon to be surrounded forces should do. Or what the stragglers should do. Should they hold and cause problems (which slows down the attacker or forces them to pull back from the 600m gain they thought they had to only 300m). Should bypassed platoon attempt to pull back or case behind the scenes issues (could be slowing down again or causing casulties to the reserve units).
Precisely!  ;)
Title: Re: Battle of St. Andre de l'Epine
Post by: Christian Knudsen on January 13, 2017, 01:12:07 AM
I've been thinking about this a bit, because it is an issue that I think we want to avoid overcomplicating if at all possible.  In my ASL port I used some existing ASL rules for perimeter determination, and grafted some escape rules and a counterattack option for the defender.  So when the engagement ends, a perimeter is determined.  Any attackers/defenders that are "isolated" by the perimeter determination either have to "escape" to friendly lines, or have to be rescued by a counterattack/continuation attack, which must happen within a given (short) time period.  The advance is then averaged based on the perimeter, and that is fed into the Op Layer as an advance distance.  A bit complicated in the execution (it is ASL, after all), but ends up fairly smooth in the Op Layer.

CM is not quite as smooth, because there is no easy way to determine a perimeter.  I see this as needing a bit of gentlemanly agreement between opponents, because there are so many variables.  I think using phase lines is probably the best way, but definitely not touch zones - they would have to be occupy types.  These would have to be every 100-200 meters depending on the depth of the map.  No problem, if the attacker achieves the "500 meter" terrain objective, then you put 500 meters into the Op Layer.  But what happens when the attacker occupies the 500 meter by running a team forward, and the defender then holds the other objectives?

In order for the attacker to dislodge the defender, i.e. count the advance as 500 meters, the attacker must have more forces at the 500 meter point than the defender has behind it, counted as manpower, including vehicle crews.  So if an attacker has managed to insert 50 men to occupy the 500 meter point, but the defender only has 30 men between the 200 and 500 meter point, then the defender has been outflanked/dislodged.  The defender must withdraw/escape, and I suggest that an escape mechanism be built in somewhere.  In this case the attacker records a 500 meter advance.

If the attacker is outnumbered by defenders that are behind them, then they are the ones who are isolated and must escape.  In this case the attacker records a 100 meter advance.

Now there are plenty of situations that will lead to complaints.  "But I've parked 10 King Tigers on a hill at the 700m objective with an FO that can interdict everything for miles around, but the defender has 60 guys broken huddling in a wood at the 200m point!  How am I possibly isolated?!?"  Well here we would either exercise some gentlemanly common sense and give it to the attacker, or just say "them's the rules, it is what it is".   We want to avoid having to include exceptions for every possible variation.  This loses us a bit of fidelity, but keeps us from bogging down completely. 

The good thing about this situation is that it avoids small pockets and tactical bypass in TO completely, which I think is desirable.  It is still totally possible to circumvent and bypass a force; you just have to either defeat the defender and gain freedom of movement, or push forces through where the defender is not, which I think is fairly realistic.
Title: Re: Battle of St. Andre de l'Epine
Post by: A Canadian Cat on January 13, 2017, 02:30:45 PM
Yeah, that actually sounds like a good starting point. Gaining some experience and tweaking it as needed sounds like a plan.
Title: Re: Battle of St. Andre de l'Epine
Post by: choppinlt on January 13, 2017, 03:48:57 PM
I've been thinking about this a bit, because it is an issue that I think we want to avoid overcomplicating if at all possible.
Agreed!  :)
In my ASL port I used some existing ASL rules for perimeter determination, and grafted some escape rules and a counterattack option for the defender.  So when the engagement ends, a perimeter is determined.  Any attackers/defenders that are "isolated" by the perimeter determination either have to "escape" to friendly lines, or have to be rescued by a counterattack/continuation attack, which must happen within a given (short) time period.  The advance is then averaged based on the perimeter, and that is fed into the Op Layer as an advance distance.  A bit complicated in the execution (it is ASL, after all), but ends up fairly smooth in the Op Layer.
Sounds cool that you put that in your ASL system! :) And yes, it sounds like it would be smooth in the Op Layer.

CM is not quite as smooth, because there is no easy way to determine a perimeter.  I see this as needing a bit of gentlemanly agreement between opponents, because there are so many variables.  I think using phase lines is probably the best way, but definitely not touch zones - they would have to be occupy types.  These would have to be every 100-200 meters depending on the depth of the map.  No problem, if the attacker achieves the "500 meter" terrain objective, then you put 500 meters into the Op Layer.  But what happens when the attacker occupies the 500 meter by running a team forward, and the defender then holds the other objectives?

In order for the attacker to dislodge the defender, i.e. count the advance as 500 meters, the attacker must have more forces at the 500 meter point than the defender has behind it, counted as manpower, including vehicle crews.  So if an attacker has managed to insert 50 men to occupy the 500 meter point, but the defender only has 30 men between the 200 and 500 meter point, then the defender has been outflanked/dislodged.  The defender must withdraw/escape, and I suggest that an escape mechanism be built in somewhere.  In this case the attacker records a 500 meter advance.

If the attacker is outnumbered by defenders that are behind them, then they are the ones who are isolated and must escape.  In this case the attacker records a 100 meter advance.

Now there are plenty of situations that will lead to complaints.  "But I've parked 10 King Tigers on a hill at the 700m objective with an FO that can interdict everything for miles around, but the defender has 60 guys broken huddling in a wood at the 200m point!  How am I possibly isolated?!?"  Well here we would either exercise some gentlemanly common sense and give it to the attacker, or just say "them's the rules, it is what it is".   We want to avoid having to include exceptions for every possible variation.  This loses us a bit of fidelity, but keeps us from bogging down completely. 

The good thing about this situation is that it avoids small pockets and tactical bypass in TO completely, which I think is desirable.  It is still totally possible to circumvent and bypass a force; you just have to either defeat the defender and gain freedom of movement, or push forces through where the defender is not, which I think is fairly realistic.
I agree 100%, CM is not that easy to truly make those determinations. I believe that no matter what method is chosen it will all come down to gentlemanly agreement regarding final interpretation. I like the theory behind your idea, however I'm concerned that implementation goes against your initial core point of avoiding overcomplication. Specifically, I'm concerned with counting the number of troops...that sounds tedious. It is certainly doable, and it could be one method players could use to help determine limits of advance, which brings me to...

I have another suggestion to measure advance limits. Every 100m of advance would have 3 'occupy' objectives spread out laterally, which roughly splits the battlefield in to 1/3rd's. The objectives would NOT have to be perfectly laid out in a perfect grid. Players would have opportunities to tweak placement of objectives within certain limits (e.g. +/-100m width, and +/-25m depth). In this way the objective stays in its intended zone, but it can be adjusted for various reasons.

Implementation: the attacker must occupy 2 out of 3 objectives per 100m phase line to qualify for advance, period, no exceptions. Furthermore the number of objectives the defender occupies BEHIND the limit of advance is subtracted from the attacker occupied objectives. This would adjust the final advance backwards due to a lack of full control.

Example: imagine a defensive zone 1000m deep and 1000m wide (see below for a diagram). There would be 3 objectives placed per 100m phase line, for a total of 30 objectives. Let us say that the Final End State of a battle shows the attackers advancing 700m, and they took 2 out of 3 objectives at every phase line. The limit of advance is 700m, which means the defenders occupy 6 objectives behind the limit of advance. Subtract 6 objectives from the attacker's objectives (starting at the limit of advance and working backwards) to find a final adjusted limit of advance. If the defender only wants to disrupt behind the lines, OR simply avoid detection, they can do so without taking objectives. If the defender wants to mount a counterattack with those 10 King Tigers hiding, then he may do so and run amok taking objectives away from the attacker.

Furthermore, see first sentence above on implementation. If the defenders hold ANY additional objectives on any of the phase lines in the diagram below, then that creates a new limit of advance due to a lack of the attacker holding 2 of 3 objectives on a given phase line. REMEMBER, we are ONLY talking about the final end state of a given battle. So objectives can ebb and flow over the course of a battle, but what matter is the Final End State of the battle.

(http://i736.photobucket.com/albums/xx4/choppinlt/Advance_zpsbfmfv1bn.png)
Title: Re: Battle of St. Andre de l'Epine
Post by: Christian Knudsen on January 13, 2017, 05:52:11 PM
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 any solution 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,
Title: Re: Battle of St. Andre de l'Epine
Post by: choppinlt on January 13, 2017, 08:18:37 PM
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.

Ha, ha  ;D, 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?

You bring up a great point! i was under the assumption that there was no hard limit to the number of VL's, and you are correct there is a limit of 8. HOWEVER, from what I understand after reading the CM 3.0 engine manual it appears that there is no limit to the number of spots assigned to an objective. It states:

"Note: there are no limitations in how you “paint” the objective
area. You can create a single large area, two
or more independent ones, or even sprinkle small
spots all over the map
. Keep in mind that points for
a specific objective are only awarded once and that
10 separate spots for a single objective means that
the player must pay attention to ALL 10 spots, not
just one. If the mission is to destroy these areas,
for example, that means all 10 must be destroyed
in order for the player to get points. This can be
difficult to effectively communicate to the player,
so be careful when spreading things out. Therefore,
generally it is better to make separate objectives for
non-contiguous goals."

So we can have all 30 spots as 1 Objective if we want, because CM isn't telling us who won or lost the battle. We are simply using their tools to create our own determination on battle outcomes. Does this make sense? Anyone have a different understanding of this? Further thoughts?

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,
I couldn't agree more!  :) That is a core tenet of my entire process.
Title: Re: Battle of St. Andre de l'Epine
Post by: Christian Knudsen on January 13, 2017, 11:01:18 PM
Ha, ha  ;D, 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?

I think your idea will work better than mine, tbh.  I suggested the counting because I think it would be fairly easy to do, you just cycle thru and keep a running tally.  Anyways maybe a better way would be to just count formations, each section or AFV is three points, each team/unarmoured veh is one.  Or go by platoons. 

Still think your idea works better, although I wonder how we handle it if the attacker manages to occupy all three at the 600 and 700 meter lines, but only 1/2 at the 200-500 meter lines, i.e. the defender has been surrounded a bit.
Title: Re: Battle of St. Andre de l'Epine
Post by: choppinlt on January 14, 2017, 02:49:35 AM
It would work the exact same way! 1st, the limit of advance is reached at the first point where the defender holds 2 of 3  VL's on a phase line. So this means that the attacker could occupy all 3 VL's at 600 and 700m, but if the defender holds 2 of 3 VL's at 500 m at the end of the battle, the limit of advance starts at 500m. Then the final limit of advance is adjusted back from that point, if necessary. Remember that we are talking about battle end state, so that means the attacker had ample opportunity to re-take any lost VL's, and they either chose NOT to re-take or were not able to retake the objectives to their rear. Does this example make sense?

My core concept of 'advance' is that it is incumbent upon the attacker to take, occupy, and have effective control of the territory. All the defender has to do is deny the attacker effective control and they have prevented advancement.
Title: Re: Battle of St. Andre de l'Epine
Post by: choppinlt on January 18, 2017, 02:54:18 AM
FYI, Canadian Cat just posted several shots of his AAR from this battle on the Battlefront forums! Check it out
http://community.battlefront.com/topic/124269-theatre-of-operations-aar-the-battle-of-st-andre-de-l’epine/?do=findComment&comment=1698487 (http://community.battlefront.com/topic/124269-theatre-of-operations-aar-the-battle-of-st-andre-de-l’epine/?do=findComment&comment=1698487)

Keep up the great work Cat, and stay away from those mines! :)
Title: Re: Battle of St. Andre de l'Epine
Post by: A Canadian Cat on March 20, 2017, 10:00:27 PM
I just reached (well actually surpassed) the casualty limit for the CM battle. We have some considering to do. Here is a link to the final turn posting: http://community.battlefront.com/topic/124269-theatre-of-operations-aar-the-battle-of-st-andre-de-l%E2%80%99epine/?page=4#comment-1705838 (http://community.battlefront.com/topic/124269-theatre-of-operations-aar-the-battle-of-st-andre-de-l%E2%80%99epine/?page=4#comment-1705838)

Basically I hit 61 casualties (give or take I was counting manually) and F Co managed to push a force to phase line Baker while E Co only manged to get to phase line Able.  The full map:
(http://i1378.photobucket.com/albums/ah98/ianrmleslie/TOO%20-%20St%20Andre%20de%20lEpine%20AAR/219aSituation318-Overview_zpscxl7wyw0.jpg)

A close up:
(http://i1378.photobucket.com/albums/ah98/ianrmleslie/TOO%20-%20St%20Andre%20de%20lEpine%20AAR/219aSituation318-ExtentOfAdvance_zpstyrs4jwb.jpg)

Note I don't have a complete picture of the enemy force but I know there is a significant force on E co's right but not significant forces between F and E Co or to F Co's left flank. I would not say there is no enemy there just not a serious threat.

We should have some discussion about a few things, such as the actual casualty numbers. Is 6% really a good number? For my infantry battalion F Co and E Co each have a platoon that is combat ineffective - the game shows several broken squads. I think you could make a solid argument that both of those companies are done fighting for the day.  But G Co has suffered no casulties at all and the engineers only one platoon has suffered any. The tank companies have hardly been scratched.

I guess the discussion would be around should the battalion use G Co to continue the assault or just solidify the gains and continue the battle another day. I would say that would be a reasonable suggestion. Or you could argue that G Co should continue the fight at least for a while. I am interested in the discussion.
Title: Re: Battle of St. Andre de l'Epine
Post by: Asid on March 21, 2017, 02:49:19 AM
Very interesting...Makes great reading.  :clap3

Thanks for posting this .

Regards
Title: Re: Battle of St. Andre de l'Epine
Post by: choppinlt on March 21, 2017, 01:56:33 PM
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.  8) 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.
Title: Re: Battle of St. Andre de l'Epine
Post by: A Canadian Cat on March 22, 2017, 01:48:52 PM
Agreed, this is an awesome point of discussion! Great write-up too, thanks again Cat for doing this. Now to business...
Thanks for letting me be involved it was fun even though it was time consuming. I'd do it again.

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.

Roger that.

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.

Oh that makes perfect sense. Especially the part about them not being done for the day. YES! PERFECT! It will really be a mind set change for playing CM - which I don't mind at all.

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.

No, go for it. That is the way I play with armour in the bocage - the tanks support the hard work of the infantry. Tanks die fast and loud when they get too close to Germans. In that kind of country Shreks, Phausts AT guns and even just infantry are just deadly and the tanks have no real chance to spot any of that first and no room to manoeuvre.

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.

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.  8) 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.

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.

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.

This is interesting stuff. Thanks for the clearer picture of how this could work.
Title: Re: Battle of St. Andre de l'Epine
Post by: choppinlt on March 22, 2017, 03:53:34 PM
Quote
Thanks for letting me be involved it was fun even though it was time consuming. I'd do it again.

GREAT!  ;D I'm glad you enjoyed it...that is the entire goal right there!!! I'm glad you said this, because if you have been following along with the scenario we have a brand new combat day dawning... This goes for anyone else that wants to volunteer doing a tactical battle resolution with any system then wish.

Quote
It will really be a mind set change for playing CM - which I don't mind at all.
Agreed, this requires a mind set change, and I mentioned above the whole point is for people to enjoy doing this. While there will be several that don't mind the change, there will be many that don't care for it as much. What I would like to do is provide "conversion options" to appeal to a wide group of tactical gamers based on preference/style of play. There will be those that want to do it exactly how we did this battle, but we can provide other options on how to execute it. For example, I would like to come up with ideas on how to allow for a higher casualty threshold for players, however there would have to be further balancing by adjusting the limit of advance and perhaps the engagement time. I have some basic thoughts, but I am completely open to suggestions here. So this is an explcit invitation for anyone to help brainstorm and offer suggestions....

Quote
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.

Trust me I get it. I have lost countless vehicles myself, and it is quite frustrating to see your armor randomly blow up only find out a faust took it out with no payback. I just threw it out there from the historical perspective. I also agree that you executed your plan very well. You mention that 2 man teams may have been better served...this brings me to part of my point above; I want to be mindful of the player experience/enjoyment. I don't want to force players in to overly tedious tactics in terms of executing movement in CM. In other words it is less effort to give a squad movement orders than to split the squad and give it 3 sets of orders. So if we can find some good balancing options, that would be great. I routinely split my teams up for various reasons when I feel the situation dictates (as I'm sure most CM players do), but I hope my point is clear that I don't want to exacerbate a situation where players feel they need to "over control" their forces.

Quote
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.

Ahhh, music to my ears! :) This is precisely my vision fully realized. Whether we get there will depend on many things, to include BFC, but this is my goal.

Quote
BTW I'll talk with @Mad Mike and we may well continue a bit longer just cause it's fun.

Sounds great! Please keep a save point where the battle "ended". Also, I would love to get some feedback from Mad Mike too on his experience being on the defensive. I am also curious about the number of casualties he sustained as well.

Quote
This is interesting stuff. Thanks for the clearer picture of how this could work.

Thanks I agree, so please let us keep this discussion going. I want to hear thoughts and ideas.
Title: Re: Battle of St. Andre de l'Epine
Post by: Christian Knudsen on March 22, 2017, 03:55:13 PM
Hey I'm back!

This is great - the more we crack on at this, the closer we get to sorting out a firm ruleset. 

FYI, I had the attacker casualty levels for the ASL crossover at 4, 9, and 18 percent for cautious, determined, and stubborn, respectively, although I'm scuppered as to how I came to those values, though I know I had a good deal of discussion with Matt about it.  One of the benefits that ASL has is a pre-existing and robust Casualty Victory Point (CVP) mechanism that includes vehicles.  So it is fairly easy to count up a total CVP value for a side's OB, do a bit of quick division, and you have a limit expressed in a system that all ASL players understand.

I am a bit concerned about how CM and by extension TO will count vehicle casualties.  Obviously the crew is a 1-for-1 in terms of men, but I would argue that an AFV potentially has far more value than an equivalent half-squad.  This is fairly solvable by just counting purchase points (for an average crew, no rarity), but unfortunately CM doesn't count CVP that way, iirc!

Another thing that will have to be factored into the CM interface, I guess.  In the interim, we will have to include VP totals for each vehicle lost, either factored into TO, or at a minimum included in the documentation for each "operation".  This then leads to another difficulty, that of assigning an average CVP value to each infantry casualty. 

Why is that?  Well if a Tiger is worth 100 points (as a totally random value), and we want to translate that into 1 Tiger = x "men", (because CM tracks "men" for victory, not points), then we need to know how many points a "man" is worth.

This leads us down a real rabbit hole, because CM figures the worth of a man based on a few factors that I don't think we want to care about in translating to TO.  A veteran soldier in CM is worth more points than a conscript.  But I think to assign an increased value to that experience for CVP might risk penalizing the player twice in TO.  Losing soldiers from experienced formations will be bad in TO as it is, but by counting an experienced troop as being worth more in terms of casualties, we actually make better formations less able to attack and defend, as they can absorb less (more valuable) casualties before being required to break off the battle! 

Of course this is counter-intuitive.  So we then need to create an "average" value for each individual soldier in terms of points.  I think this would have to be based on the battalion; it is the basic maneuver unit in TO, and is the biggest OB formation.  So in this case we say that a battalion has 400 men (bayonet strength), and a (average) Bn is worth 1000 points, so each "man" is worth 2.5 points. 

Then we get to play the game of how much things that CM does not track are worth; Regt and higher HQs, Armoured formations bigger than a Platoon, Artillery batteries, Transport columns, etc.  A problem for another time, I think.

My 0.02, anyways.  http://dogsofwarvu.com/forum/Smileys/akyhne/shotsemot.gif
Title: Re: Battle of St. Andre de l'Epine
Post by: choppinlt on March 22, 2017, 06:43:50 PM
Hey welcome back CK, and thanks for posting!

I could be completely missing your point, but I don't think we need to assign victory points when using CM. Players will be prompted by ToO to input the battle results. This will include engagement time, limits of advance, total casualties, and vehicle losses.

Are you talking about determining casualty thresholds to signal the end of an engagement? If so, then I wasn't counting equipment loss in the equation at all. I was literally using number of casualties as the sole determining factor. So there is no need to worry about converting equipment to X number of men. Nor is quality a particular concern. Higher quality troops will be more immune to additional negative effects of sustaining casualties, but the rate of casualties sustained is what will remove fighting spirit from a force. Does this explanation make sense?

Keep in mind that attacking players are free to halt an attack at any point they wish prior to ever reaching their casualty threshold. For instance, the attackers suffer few casualties, but their supporting armor is all hung up in mud and mines while the rest has been knocked out. The attacking player is probably going to call a halt. The immobilized tanks will all be returned back to service (eventually, though it could be many hours if not days), and a certain number of the KO'd tanks will also get back in to service over several days.

Did I address your concern, or was I way off?!  :)
Title: Re: Battle of St. Andre de l'Epine
Post by: Christian Knudsen on March 22, 2017, 07:39:17 PM
Yes, I was more worried about engagement thresholds, both for attacker and defender. 

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...
Title: Re: Battle of St. Andre de l'Epine
Post by: choppinlt on March 22, 2017, 08:21:46 PM
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!

They can lead with the tanks, but that is going to lead to other potential issues for the attacker! And remember that the loss of crews count as casualties!

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.

Agree fully. With CM it is fairly simple because it shows 1:1 representation on a 3D and dynamic battlefield. Game systems using methods that are more abstract in their depiction will require work to figure out conversion and balancing methods. You know this better than most with your outstanding efforts with ASL!  :) But with a little work, it can be accomplished, right?!

Again, a lot of this will come out in the wash as testing goes on...

Agreed!  ;D
Title: Re: Battle of St. Andre de l'Epine
Post by: choppinlt on March 27, 2017, 02:52:32 PM
I am open to suggestions on ways to handle the casualty threshold levels, but here is my basic suggestion for an alternative method: multiply the casualty threshold by 2 for each side, then develop a relationship between each side's casualty % that adjusts the line of advance. In other words, the attacker may gain 800m, but if they take a much higher casualty % relative to the defender then the line of advance may be moved back several hundred meters (and vice versa). These results can be normalized to prevent losses from being too high in ToO, AND the tactical players have more flexibility in terms of the battle parameters. I am hoping this creates a situation where players can "have their cake and eat it too"  :bacondance Thoughts?

DON'T PANIC,  :scared1 the math averse crowd does NOT have to compute this. This can be done automagically, with answers simply given to the users. This is for discussion purposes only...

Lastly, those keeping tabs on the scenario will notice that this discussion is timely, because we are dawning on a new day of combat. I hope to have something ready soon, but keep in an eye for when we look for tactical volunteers. It appears that we can use up to 8 tactical players that are interested.