How Montgomery did it. Why this game is good.

[altipueri]

This game does seem to be the best representation of what a general does. It is fun in other games having tank models and 3d ability to see round the back of houses but for a closer approximation to what a commander actually does Command Ops is the one. I read the bit below the other day:


From Winston Churchill's "The Second World War". Chapter XXIV "Crossing the Rhine"

At 8 p.m. we repaired to the map wagon, and I now had an excellent opportunity of seeing Montgomery's methods of conducting a battle on this gigantic scale. For nearly two hours a succession of young officers, of about the rank of major, presented themselves. Each had come back from a different sector of the front. They were the direct personal representatives of the Commander-in-Chief, and could go anywhere and see anything and ask any questions they liked of any commander. As in turn they made their reports and were searchingly questioned by their chief the whole story of the day's battle was unfolded. This gave Monty a complete account of what had happened by highly competent men whom he knew well and whose eyes he trusted. It afforded an invaluable cross-check to the reports from all the various headquarters and from the commanders, all of which had already been sifted and weighed by General de Guingard, his Chief of Staff, and were known to Montgomery. By this process he was able to form a more vivid, direct and sometimes more accurate picture. The officers ran great risks, and of the seven or eight to whom I listened on this and succeeding nights two were killed in the next few weeks. I thought the system admirable, and indeed the only way in which a modern Commander-in-Chief could see as well as read what was going on in every part of the front. This process having finished, Montgomery gave a series of directions to de Guingand, which were turned into immediate action by the Staff machine. And so to bed.

* * * * *

The next day, March 25, we went to meet Eisenhower. On our way I told Montgomery how his system resembled that of Marlborough and the conduct of battles in the eighteenth century, where the Commander-in-Chief acted through his lieutenant-generals. Then the Commander-in-Chief sat on his horse and directed by word of mouth a battle on a five or six mile front, which ended in a day and settled the fortunes of great nations, sometimes for years or generations to come. In order to make his will effective he had four or five lieutenant-generals posted at different points on the front, who knew his whole mind and were concerned with the execution of his plan. These officers commanded no troops and were intended to be off-shoots and expressions of the Supreme Commander. In modern times the general must sit in his office conducting a battle ranging over ten times the front and lasting often for a week or ten days. In these changed conditions Montgomery's method of personal eye-witnesses, who were naturally treated with the utmost consideration by the front-line commanders of every grade, was an interesting though partial revival of old days.

[navwarcol]

I agree. There are only two things missing for the most part here..1, is friendly FOW, which seems to be something "in the pipeline" with different commands in the future here.
The other, is as the German, you don't have to look over your shoulder for the staff car calling you back to Berlin for "consultations"[;)]
All in all, this game gives a very realistic approach to command, from a commander's view... from hoping that your AI "subordinates" follow their orders, to the idea , with orders delay, of having to plan far enough in advance to issue timely orders, something like a large ship, which even once the wheel is fully turned, still takes some precious minutes to shift its momentum in the water, and actually turn onto the new bearing.

[wodin]

Though everyone wants friendly FOW..beware of what you wish for..in a game I've played that has it done realistically you have no idea what the hell is happening pretty much at any time..it's not something that adds fun to a game I will say that.

[navwarcol]

Not sure I necessarily "want" it...though the other game you are possibly referring to, does a pretty good job of it. I only meant my comment to say it is one of only a couple of things missing, that would make the game 100% realistic... FWIW, I also don't want the #2 thing I listed above, to be added to the game either [:D]

[Phoenix100]

I recall thinking that too - that we would need friendly FOW to accurately represent what a commander would have. BUt, like Wodin says, can you imagine what Losheim or Elsenborn would be like? First seven hours the map would be blank...or just empty squares representing where you last knew your units to be...

Be nice as an option, maybe. So would 1:1 time - which Dave has said they may do.

[Alchenar]

ORIGINAL: phoenix

I recall thinking that too - that we would need friendly FOW to accurately represent what a commander would have. BUt, like Wodin says, can you imagine what Losheim or Elsenborn would be like? First seven hours the map would be blank...or just empty squares representing where you last knew your units to be...

Be nice as an option, maybe. So would 1:1 time - which Dave has said they may do.

1:1 time would be functionally equivalent to pause.

I also assume that the time lag in getting updates back to command is kinda abstracted into planning delay already. The problem with trying to implement map updates as reports travel back to HQ is that you rapidly end up with a map that represents multiple time frames at the same time (with the potential for the same unit to appear multiple times in different places as different allied units report it at different times but don't realise it's the same one). The other problem is that as a game you don't get access to a host of benefits that you'd have in real life (ie. a small army of staff officers) that would be helping you to make sense of a 'realistic' set of map reports.

The ideal solution is probably pretty close to what we have now - things which are virtually impossible to simulate are abstracted to cancel each other out and we are left with what we have.

[Phoenix100]

1:1 time would be functionally equivalent to pause.

Very true. Hadn't thought of that.

You're right - I think we have it pretty ideal now, in respect of FOW. If you implemented something more realistic it would have to go with limiting the command level - so you only saw what, for example, the on-map boss could see, and thus could only give orders at that level. Which would severely limit things. Otherwise you end up with the kind of FOW simulation they have in, for example, the Combat Mission series (though only for OPFOR) - where you get access to what each unit knows of as you click on it, which means you end up knowing nearly everything (or would, if we were talking about friendly FOW).

[RockinHarry]

I´d agree this fitting Monty or early russian operational methods, but does less of justice to german, late US and russian methods, who more rely on initiative, particularly on "Auftragstaktik".

I could imagine in the game, high initiative commanders would take "opportunities" to procede on map objectives, without waiting for the boss to give explicit orders. Surely a huge challenge to code something like that into the game, but otherwise I could not well imagine how the eastern front version would play historically (or at least with a feel of it) with an unchanged CO engine.

[Alchenar]

ORIGINAL: RockinHarry

I´d agree this fitting Monty or early russian operational methods, but does less of justice to german, late US and russian methods, who more rely on initiative, particularly on "Auftragstaktik".

I could imagine in the game, high initiative commanders would take "opportunities" to procede on map objectives, without waiting for the boss to give explicit orders. Surely a huge challenge to code something like that into the game, but otherwise I could not well imagine how the eastern front version would play historically (or at least with a feel of it) with an unchanged CO engine.

Just give a unit a move order with 'attacks' or 'bypass' checked and you'll see initiative in action. You just don't really appreciate that it's initiative because you see it all happen in real time and don't get a report at the end of the day that Battalion x attacked and destroyed a couple of enemy companies on their way to their objective.

[Arjuna]

Well actually now you do at least geta move stalled and bypassing report. We could do more in the future to increase the reporting but we have to be careful not to overwhelm the player. We really need an interface to say give me full reporting on this force bot not this one. That way you can filter out the non essential stuff.

[wodin]

ORIGINAL: Arjuna

Well actually now you do at least geta move stalled and bypassing report. We could do more in the future to increase the reporting but we have to be careful not to overwhelm the player. We really need an interface to say give me full reporting on this force bot not this one. That way you can filter out the non essential stuff.

More reports is something I've wanted for ages...sounds a good way of doing it. I don't think it would overload the player more likely help him.

[wodin]

ORIGINAL: RockinHarry

I´d agree this fitting Monty or early russian operational methods, but does less of justice to german, late US and russian methods, who more rely on initiative, particularly on "Auftragstaktik".

I could imagine in the game, high initiative commanders would take "opportunities" to procede on map objectives, without waiting for the boss to give explicit orders. Surely a huge challenge to code something like that into the game, but otherwise I could not well imagine how the eastern front version would play historically (or at least with a feel of it) with an unchanged CO engine.

You dont think the engine can do East front at the moment then? I know something was going to be done for the Russians regarding ..damn forgot the word..thats it doctrine..it asn't been mentioned for ages. Infact info on new features for the EF game have been extremely quite over the last year.

[RockinHarry]

ORIGINAL: wodin

ORIGINAL: RockinHarry

I´d agree this fitting Monty or early russian operational methods, but does less of justice to german, late US and russian methods, who more rely on initiative, particularly on "Auftragstaktik".

I could imagine in the game, high initiative commanders would take "opportunities" to procede on map objectives, without waiting for the boss to give explicit orders. Surely a huge challenge to code something like that into the game, but otherwise I could not well imagine how the eastern front version would play historically (or at least with a feel of it) with an unchanged CO engine.

You dont think the engine can do East front at the moment then? I know something was going to be done for the Russians regarding ..damn forgot the word..thats it doctrine..it asn't been mentioned for ages. Infact info on new features for the EF game have been extremely quite over the last year.

If you make a custom 1941 ESTAB (as I did) and plug it right into the game, rather no. I´m sure Bil H has some unique ideas and procedures, to get Blitzkrieg 1940 happen in some realistic ways and it´s left to be seen, what is yet added to the engine for the Chir module. As said, breakthrough/overrun attacks, better reflection of high initiative leader doctrines and better worked out artillery handling would be some key features IMHO. I do not forget, that CO started as sort of airborne ops game and evolved toward mechanized ops, so I´m actually quite confident about the game/simulation engine as such.

[navwarcol]

RockinHarry... do you have your estab available for download?

[RockinHarry]

ORIGINAL: navwarcol

RockinHarry... do you have your estab available for download?

Sorry, no. It´s still WIP and just includes basic stuff like german Pz IIIg/H, IVd, russian T34/41, BT, T26 and small arms, no ARTY yet. Just sufficient for my own testing purposes so far.

I´d recommend to give tukkers 1940 set a try for some Blitzkrieg tastes, as he´s also in Panthers expansions team, thus should give an idea what likely to expect:

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3140798

[navwarcol]

Ah, great! Thank you.
I have been working on the other direction.. love the "what if..." idea, so have been playing with the idea of the 2 sides advancing some ahead of where they were at the end of the war historically, for example, the Germans historically used 2 of the Maus tanks in the last days against the Soviets, so I have added them in a 2 tank platoon, etc. An interesting study actually as putting it "into action" in this game, I came to the same conclusion Guderian did with regards to this monster.