Western Front campaign anyone?

I am not sure if I am late to comment on how to deal with overwhelming attacker odds.
Say two platoons with 10% casualties attach into a square with a platoon that suffered 30% casualties.
The approximate points for the battle would be:
Attacker - 2 platoons (about 160 points each, 2 MGs and a on board mortar) - total about 430 points total. 10% casualties - about 390 points.
Defender - a platoon with an MG - about 200 points, 30% casualties 130 points.

In CM this will be a lopsided battle that just won't be fun to fight.

Now the defender spent some time fortifying the positions. Say they got a squad of engineers, some support (MG or light MG, sniper, mortar). That is about 70 points.
Now we have 390 points attacking into 200 points. This is an assault in QB in CM. I don't think anyone plays those. The attacker still has a huge advantage.

Now, since the defender spent some time fortifying the positions with the help if engineers they probably dug in some foxholes, later some mines, maybe put some barb wire.

If you give the defender another 120 points in fortification you will bring the point ratio to 390/320 = 1.2
That is a bit better than a probe for the attacker and we have a battle.

So my suggestion to provide the defender with a squad of engineers, some support until and fill the rest with fortification points to make the battles more balanced.
 
Larsen said:
I am not sure if I am late to comment on how to deal with overwhelming attacker odds.
Say two platoons with 10% casualties attach into a square with a platoon that suffered 30% casualties.
The approximate points for the battle would be:
Attacker - 2 platoons (about 160 points each, 2 MGs and a on board mortar) - total about 430 points total. 10% casualties - about 390 points.
Defender - a platoon with an MG - about 200 points, 30% casualties 130 points.

In CM this will be a lopsided battle that just won't be fun to fight.

Now the defender spent some time fortifying the positions. Say they got a squad of engineers, some support (MG or light MG, sniper, mortar). That is about 70 points.
Now we have 390 points attacking into 200 points. This is an assault in QB in CM. I don't think anyone plays those. The attacker still has a huge advantage.

Now, since the defender spent some time fortifying the positions with the help if engineers they probably dug in some foxholes, later some mines, maybe put some barb wire.

If you give the defender another 120 points in fortification you will bring the point ratio to 390/320 = 1.2
That is a bit better than a probe for the attacker and we have a battle.

So my suggestion to provide the defender with a squad of engineers, some support until and fill the rest with fortification points to make the battles more balanced.
Click to expand...
I think you're forgetting that this is a campaign, which means some (most) battles won't be equal, and some will have overwhelming odds.

While it's not fun to get steamrolled in a normal isolated battle, I think it can be fun in a campaign to see how long you can hold out, and how high casualties you can cause.

Your loss won't be meaningless, as you could delay or weaken the attacking side enough that a tactical loss is actually an operational victory.

As an alternative, you (or your side's commander) could decide to withdraw instead of getting overrun. Avoiding the most lopsided battles.


By the way, are you from Denmark? Your name is a common Danish surname.
 
Last edited:
Campaign or no campaign the way I look at battles - is it fun to fight or not? If it is one sides what fun is it?
Usually when the odds are overwhelming the defender is destroyed without inflicting much casualties to the attacker.
Also it is not unrealistic for the defender to dig in and lay some minefields. Using some individual units for the reinforcement is also realistic. If the defender is weakened by taking the sector then the HQ might send some reserve units to help.
Otherwise it us better to withdraw then to fight a battle that would wipe the unit out.

I am from the US. There was a badminton player from Denmark who won the Olympic games in 96 - Paul-Eric Hoyer-Larsen. I saw him live at the US open in 96 and 97. I loved his style. He also was very cool the way he behaved himself. That"s where my nick came from :)
 
Might be a matter of temperament or even culture difference US/Europe.. But if I want to play a balanced game, I'll just set up a scenario or an isolated QB with someone. For me, the appeal of playing in a campaign would be that interesting and unequal situations would happen, and that saving ammo and keeping casualties low would become more important. I'd be fine with playing some hopeless (but heroic) last stand battles.
 
Ok. Let me try another approach :)
Say a platoon with the help of another platoon or by itself manages to capture a sector. Now the BN HQ can give it three orders - keep pressing forward (or to the side to join an another attack or to prove), to withdraw to rest and get reinforced or to dig in.
If moving forward then the platoon finds itself in an ME or an attack.
If withdraw it is moved back to rest and get reserves. If it us ordered to dig in it will get foxholes, maybe trenches and hopefully lay some minefields. It has to in order to prepare the defensive position. Whether it gets reinforcements or not that is really up to the BN HQ. But if they make the platoon to take a defensive stance it better be ready to support it somehow. Otherwise what is the point? Last stands almost universally result in the unit being wiped out while inflicting very minor damage to the attacker (unless you are playing against an AI).
I live in the US and I am originally from Russia. Our history is full of last stands. And almost universally they don't make any sense and were the result of incompetent leadership. We don't have incompetent leaders here, do we? :)
 
Larsen said:
But if they make the platoon to take a defensive stance it better be ready to support it somehow. Otherwise what is the point? Last stands almost universally result in the unit being wiped out while inflicting very minor damage to the attacker
Click to expand...
That's the theory, but in war, the situation is rarely ideal, and can get desperate. I talked to a guy who used to be an officer in the Danish Army, and he said if you have to give a unit an order to do a suicidal defence, it's best to tell them to "hold until relieved" or "hold until given the order to withdraw", to give the men a sense there's hope, instead of telling them to hold till the last man and the last bullet. Even when you know there won't be any order to withdraw, and that no relief force is likely to arrive.

The purpose of such last stands is to buy time for other units to pull back, or to protect a vulnerable flank for a more important unit. Is that incompetence? I don't think so, it's just very callous.

In a friendly computer game campaign, I think such situations will be rare. But they might happen.

The idea to give the defending unit some points for digging in if that unit doesn't move that turn is fine by me.
 
The question is how many fortification points are you willing to give to the defender?
Say the defender has two squads, an HQ and an MG. That is 6 teams. 12 foxholes for main and the fallback positions. That is a must. That costs only 60 points and does not really change much if the attacker has close to 400 points. You will need another 100-130 points to make it fun.
So here is the question: what is more preferable to give the defender another squad without HQ) and a support team (HMG or a mortar) and about 120 points in fortification or give the sender only fortification points (about 200 of them)?
CM is a tactical game. It does not have a strategic layer for a reason. There were numerous attempts to add it starting back on the early cm1 days and all of them failed. We have to approximate this strategic layer somehow to make the battles fun.
 
One of my goals with campaign design is to make it interesting and enjoyable. A balance of realism and playability.

In the Brigade Battles campaign, there are 60 companies in play. Big map and big manoeuvres.
In the first version, I allowed a hex to be attacked from all directions.
This quickly resulted in several 3 vs 1 company battles, which weren't much fun for the defender to play.
We started the campaign again and I limited attacks to 2 vs 1, which has been working fairly well, even though there are still unbalanced battles.
Increasingly we have seen a number of deliberate 1 vs 1 battles and these seem to work fine as well.

Platoon Leader (which this map is being created for) will have a slightly different format.
Unlike BB it will have simultaneous movement (which increases the likelihood of meeting engagements) and only 1 vs 1 battles.
Each side's CO can distribute battalion level assets to a battle (within limits).
The map development for Platoon Leader is advancing rapidly and may act as a prototype for the much larger Urban Warriors campaign.

I suspect Urban Warriors will use a similar campaign format to Platoon Leader, but at a larger scale.
The strength of the core units (company level in this case) will be determined by it's combat strength, plus any battalion extras (maybe even some brigade level).

So although there may still be several unbalanced battles (3 squads/platoons vs 1 squad/platoons), it is the CO's responsibility to manage that.
That could involve bolstering a weakened unit with battalion support, or pulling them off the line to avoid having them get wiped out.
I am also considering using a limited replacement function to allow heavily damaged units to regain strength while not in contact.

Regardless, with the platoon scale of Platoon Leader and the lethality of modern urban fighting in Urban Warriors, it is quite possible that we could see entire units wiped out in just one battle.
 
Right. So why not let the defender to purchase the fortifications? And why not let the BN HQ reinforce the defending platoon with a couple of units (be that an MG, an engineer squad, sniper, LMG, infantry gun etc)? Fortifications should be a must for the defender. The longer they occupyin the square the more they should purchase.
 
Concord said:
One of my goals with campaign design is to make it interesting and enjoyable. A balance of realism and playability.

In the Brigade Battles campaign, there are 60 companies in play. Big map and big manoeuvres.
In the first version, I allowed a hex to be attacked from all directions.
This quickly resulted in several 3 vs 1 company battles, which weren't much fun for the defender to play.
We started the campaign again and I limited attacks to 2 vs 1, which has been working fairly well, even though there are still unbalanced battles.
Increasingly we have seen a number of deliberate 1 vs 1 battles and these seem to work fine as well.
Click to expand...
Sorry not following your campaign closely but based on that problem may a solution was to allow the defender to bring in unengaged companies from nearby hexes as reserves with a time penalty based on the number of hexes they need to cross to reach the point of the action. This would force the attacker to at least set up feints/spoiling attacks elsewhere to hold up nearby forces and reduce the risk of reserve forces coming into play. Would encourage both players to hold something behind the lines in case of breakthrough.

Meh.... as long as it is fun. There's always next time. :D
 
Bulletpoint said:
I think you're forgetting that this is a campaign, which means some (most) battles won't be equal, and some will have overwhelming odds.

While it's not fun to get steamrolled in a normal isolated battle, I think it can be fun in a campaign to see how long you can hold out, and how high casualties you can cause.

Your loss won't be meaningless, as you could delay or weaken the attacking side enough that a tactical loss is actually an operational victory.

As an alternative, you (or your side's commander) could decide to withdraw instead of getting overrun. Avoiding the most lopsided battles.


By the way, are you from Denmark? Your name is a common Danish surname.
Click to expand...
While a campaign 'game' may well start with sides balanced, one of the objectives of each player is to develop, as quickly as possible, an unequal situation or 'local superiority'. The whole point is after all to disadvantage or overwhelm your opponent. That's war. But it is also a game. So okay, some people will emphasize the 'war' side more and others the 'game' side, preferring to play only balanced games. I get that. We all want to have fun and as we are all unique persons, we also define what 'fun' is a bit differently. So let each precipitate towards the game style they enjoy.
Cheers,
 
Kandu said:
The whole point is after all to disadvantage or overwhelm your opponent.
Click to expand...

That's just it. Some people playing a campaign battle think it should be fair. It can't be always like that. So in my Brief Border War campaign I have a stacking limit for each area and both sides get to move before each battle giving a defending side to withdraw or bring in reinforcements.
There hasn't been any lob-sided battles, but none have been even either. That didn't stop the guys taking chucks out of each other.
 
Still chipping away at this map for the Platoon Leader campaign here and there when I get time.

The center 2 rows are complete. Working on the 2 rows further out from these now.
The outermost rows where the forces will start will likely be fairly plain, just to save time, as it is unlikely they will see much combat.

Here is a screenshot of the whole map. 3.84km wide x 2.88km deep. 8 battle maps wide x 6 battle maps deep.

Overview.jpg

Several of the current zones have only been named (such as The Pass and The Cabbage Patch) but all the rest are at different stages of development.
Here are some screenshots of these battle zones.

The Pond

The Pond.jpg


The Aid Station

The Aid Station.jpg


The Flak Pit

The Flak Pit.jpg


The Field Workshop

The Field Workshop.jpg


The Ruin

The Ruin.jpg


The Needle

The Needle.jpg


The Manor

The Manor.jpg


The Outpost

The Outpost.jpg


The Woods

The Woods.jpg
 
Coming along nicely. Couple of thoughts..

Re: The ruin, I'm wondering if the perimeter wall should also be a bit destroyed. When I did a ruin in "Contact Front!", I removed parts of the wall and replaced with rubble, and added bushes and small trees here and there. If the ruin is so old that it's almost level with the ground, it should be pretty overgrown. Also, it looks a bit odd to me that there are no gaps in the perimeter wall where a car (or at least a horse-drawn wagon) could enter.

Re: The Flak pit, would it be possible to add some AA vehicles or similar there for flavour? Can't remember if that's possible in quick battles...
 
Gunner said:
Whoa, no attacking the flak pit for me please. ;)
Click to expand...
Work in progress. :)
I am very much aware of the aim between realism and playability.

Bulletpoint said:
Coming along nicely. Couple of thoughts..

Re: The ruin, I'm wondering if the perimeter wall should also be a bit destroyed. When I did a ruin in "Contact Front!", I removed parts of the wall and replaced with rubble, and added bushes and small trees here and there. If the ruin is so old that it's almost level with the ground, it should be pretty overgrown. Also, it looks a bit odd to me that there are no gaps in the perimeter wall where a car (or at least a horse-drawn wagon) could enter.

Re: The Flak pit, would it be possible to add some AA vehicles or similar there for flavour? Can't remember if that's possible in quick battles...
Click to expand...

Great ideas for the ruins.
I so wish that I could add more things in the editor. Very limited palette.

EDIT: eg. flavour objects like tents!
 
Last edited:
Ruins also benefit graphically by raising the rubble square one, two or three meters higher than the rest of the building's foundation. For ruined walls, not more than one meter.
 
9 months later, I have started working on this again, during a long weekend here in Western Australia.
My large CMRT campaign Brigade Battles is well advanced in it's lifespan, and I thought it would be a good time to develop this CMFB one further.

Completed 4 map zones previously started.
There are 7 more zones that also need fleshing out, of a total 32 zones.
Nearing completion.

This campaign map is 8 battle zones wide across the front, and 4 zones deep.
There is an additional row of 8 zones at the top and bottom of the map where forces will start, but they will be simple and fairly bare.
So it's a total of 32 main (named) battle-map zones that will be used when complete.

In the next post, I want to get some (more) advice about some basics in regards to the campaign format.


Overview

overview.jpg


The Needle

The Needle.jpg


The Pond

The Pond.jpg


The Pass

The Pass.jpg


The Corner

The Corner.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom