What makes a good CM QB Map?

[Zemke]

The random computer generated maps are usually not very realistic, but do save a lot of time. I prefer a ready made map, and have made many and downloaded several. Most tend to be "similar" to medium hills and woods maps because 90% of players set the computer generated maps settings that way for the sake of fairness. The problem with realistic maps is they don't make for very good meeting engagements, (the most popular CM battles) or very fair attack/defend battles, and I would argue no one wants to play realistic CM battles anyway. Realistic battles do not make for very good ladder matches.

ME/QB battles are the most popular type of battle played and certainly the most unrealistic. Popular because they are perceived to be the most "fair" battle type for ladder purposes. The most unrealistic because meeting engagements DO NOT turn into the blood fest CM ME QBs do. Regardless of the map type, as soon you make "contact" with the enemy, you are not going to charge or attack. You are going to stop all movement, deploy forces, and try and determine the extent of the enemy you face, and even if equal, set up a hasty defense, only a fool would attack with equal combat power. But that is what happens in CM battles no matter what the map is.

Attack defend battles are also not very realistic, but more so than the usual QB meeting engagement and maps for them are also the middle of the road, medium everything type. (Makes you wonder how either side ever fought over the plains and steppes' of Europe.) Maps are only part of the issue in attack / defend battles. The other is force ratios, time to recon the enemy and time to conduct the attack. Force ratios for any kind of attack, hasty or deliberate, are usually no less than three to one in combat power, (and frankly much more if you can get it), some idea of enemy positions from a previous recon and a detailed study of the map. If time allows the commander will recon the avenues of approach himself, in CM this would the equal to putting the view at gound level and following the proposes axis of advance to see the details of the terrain, (which most PBEM games turn into, who has done the best "detailed" micro management of every single unit). Try telling an opponent you want to attack him with four or five to one odds, 40% of his positions known and oh by the way, I will be dropping more artillery rounds on you by a factor of five than the game supports. That is a real world attack which is frankly only fun for the attacking player.

An additional problem of Combat Mission battles is they are all executed in isolation, and will never accurately reflect real world or historical fights because of that. Only the largest battles and longest CM battles come close, (and IMO, not very) to a realistic battle. Why? In a large, long CM battle you have time to conduct some kind of recon of the routes into the Objectives and (if you read it the terrain and your opponent correctly) you can mass just enough combat power long enough to have the effects you want, before the enemy can move forces to react, but just. Most of the time you will run out of indirect fire rounds long before you should, leaving your attack terribly exposed to the direct fire effects of the dug in enemy.

Perhaps if you imagine that for some reason, time is very short, all your artillery batteries and mortar supply trucks broke down or got stuck, you decided a detailed study of the map was not important, your higher commander was an idiot, and the lives of your men mean nothing, then doing the ME QBs or A/D QB could be realistic.

It is my hope than CM Campaigns will create more realistic battles, where the effects of that battle are felt far beyond the current isolated "battle in a vacuum" CM battles tend to be.