WynnterGreen

I'm having a play around with CM for the first time in a while. Giving a AFV a Target Armour Cover Arc will result in the unit not engaging AA Vehicles.

Video footage surfaced showing Syrian rebels using a German World War II - Era Wehrmacht Howitzer on the battlefield in Idlib. The howitzer appears to be a 10.5 cm leFH 18, a 105 mm light howitzer that entered service with Nazi Germany's armed forces in 1935. The Syrian Army was known to operate limited numbers of the 10,5 cm leFH 18M howitzer, as well as the 7,5cm PaK 40 anti-tank gun. It is likely that the howitzer shown was captured from a Syrian Army base or museum.This footage is part of an ongoing documentary of the war in Syria through raw combat footage. German World War II Era Wehrmacht Howitzer Used By Syrian Rebels On The Battlefield In Idlib .

I've got no problem with the need to reload during the assault. I've got a problem with the individual sitting around for 30 turns prior to the assault and not reloading or consolidating ammo.

It was noticing assaulting troops stopping at odd and infuriating times that bought it to my attention that units weren't reloading between engagements. Which I then put to the test to confirm. I'm not contending that it's a particular problem with 'assaulting units' or 'assault tactics', it's a systemic problem with reloading. ie, that given ample opportunity and time, units aren't reloading their weapons. Which means that those 'assaulting units' are doing so with little ammo loaded due to lack of preparation, not lack of ammo. There seems to be some disagreement with the assessment I've made. Fair enough. I contend that it's a LONG way from First Person Shooter syndrome to expect moderately well trained troops to reload their weapons and consolidate ammo between firefights. Assistant gunners and Squad Leaders should be insisting on it, it's their job, and there should be some kind of [under the hood] representation of that in game. Currently there isn't.

oh. Good. Agree or disagree I'm glad the message is getting through. My intention isn't to comment on the 'feasibility or difficulty' of getting units to consoildate and prepare effectively in CM as a coding effort. If it's an unreasonable expectation 'workload for reward', so be it. My objective is to point out the discrepancy between what one might reasonably expect to see tactically, against what's reproduced behaviorally in the simulation.

Are we? The game would beg to differ. At the moment your Elite infantry units won't reload or consolidate ammo no matter how much time they're given between firefights.

Ummmm..... I'm not sure how to explain it again to make it more simple. Currently in CombatMission an individual will fire off any percentage of the ammunition from his current clip, magazine, belt, whatever....... fine. After he's done so, it doesnt matter how much time passes, he won't swap out the clip or reload his firearm until he expends all the ammo in the currently loaded magazine...... Bad. It might be thirty minutes/turns of idle time, and you might be about to assault him across a dangerous field, but he won't repack, reload or ensure that his firearm is properly loaded before the advance, no matter how much time or opportunity he's afforded. He's happy to wait until he's discharged whatever's left in the magazine, and reload somewhere stupid, dangerous, illogical and inappropriate. Any semblance of realism should require that each individual keep his ammunition loadout at optimal. Including reloading and ammunition consolidation whenever possible. As it stands, given time and opportunity, that's not what they do. It doesnt require a 'reload' micromanagement button as someone implied. It requires some coding that simulates reloading and consolidation. Much the same way that there's already coding for ammo sharing.

You dont need to go into the mechanical details of reloading to understanding that not reloading when you have ample opportunity is STUPID and wouldn't happen.

Oh' come on...... this is absurd. What possible argument is there for sitting around with the last two rounds in your assault rifles magazine (Accept for, 'these are the last two rounds you have') in lulls between firefights? Time to prepare, IS TIME TO PREPARE. At the moment the Combat Mission AI situation is: Fire off some rounds at an area target, sit around for ten minutes with the last 3 rounds in your magazine, make the assault with the 3 round mag and reload to the full clip you're carrying at the most inconvenient and dangerous time possible. So because it's not obvious, when they've got ten minutes to sit around before the next engagement, they shouldn't swap out the mag or repack it? Better to keep the clip with 'I don't know how many'?

For a while I've been noticing while mirco-managing between turns that quite often my infantry start reloading at infuriating times during a firefight. Instead of reloading during periods of rest, they sit with their clips depleted to just a few rounds. Then, when the S*#T hits the fan, they pop off the remaining rounds before beginning the reloading procedure during the middle of the engagement. I put it to the test with US BAR units, depleted to just the single Automatic Rifleman. I had them fire 'Target Briefly' at an area to substantially deplete their clips. I then rested them for ten to fifteen minutes. After the rest period I then 'Targeted Briefly' again. They fire off the last two or three rounds in their clip then start reloading. UNITS SHOULD BE RELOADING BETWEEN ENGAGEMENTS, not just waiting until their clips are depleted. In my opinion this is quite an oversight.

Read 'opposite side of the wall' as in the same action square as the wall, if the'ye further back, they wont be spotted.

Just tested this. The exception is hedge and low boacge. Units spot through them while hidden very quickly and easily, right out to at least 150m, my test limit. Units will spot enemy units traversing along the opposite side of a low wall, hedge, low bocage out to a reasonable distance. Tall bocage the enemy has to be nearly on top of them before they spot. Unit's hidden behind low walls get a [Sound - Infantry ?] contact from quick traverse moving enemy at about 70m in empty terrain [but never spot] after about one minute.

You're not demanding change, but you are continuously asking for better evidence in an environment where none, or little, may exist. Nor is anyone else 'demanding change'. Arguments have been made [based on evidence currently available] that modelling of ATGs in CM under-represents the assets real world capabilities. Some of us would like to see change, but that's far from demanding anything. Battlefront may saunter in here at any time and say "this is what I know about ATGs, and this is why I've chosen to model them the way they are". Further discussion may ensue, or they may close the matter with their godlike power over how ATG mechanics work in THEIR game . Those advocating for change are asking for more realism [in their view] and they hope BF will see it the same way. That's all. You seem to be asserting that the evidence presented by Lt.Bull isn't good enough to demonstrate the conclusions he's come to? Interestingly, you "definitely agree that ATGs ought to be allowed faster movement speeds if some realistic provisions could be made for it". You agree with the conclusion, but disagree with the quality of evidence provided to support the conclusion? So, you're basing your belief that ATGs ought to be allowed to move faster on......... what exactly? Can you understand why Lt.Bull might find your desire for him to provide better evidence perplexing? Any number of things might exist. .

You do understand that sometimes better sources are unavailable, and that we have to infer likelihoods and probabilities from the somewhat limited resources we have? It's perfectly valid to make inferences on less than ideal source material, so long as we're prepared to adjust our thinking when better information becomes available. Do you think Combat Mission is based on nothing but flawless data and pristine source material? You hate the sources, we get it. Table something more valuable and we'll all happily reference it. If you don't like the analysis, add yours to the discussion. Otherwise you're not contributing much, other than negativity.

I'm assuming the 50 feet [15m] is hyperbole? I find it extremely difficult to believe a 57mm ATG could be moved that far unless it was off a ledge or down a steep slope. Recoil springs and rails take up a huge portion of the energy. Is it possible the person was hit by the barrel blow back and not carriage movement? A quote would be awesome, just to satiate curiosity. I completely agree that it's impossible for BF to code for all permutations and that we have to accept abstraction. That's true of many and varied aspects of CM. I don't think that changes the fact that ATGs need attention. If you look at many WWII era guns trails, they were designed with a plough wedge at the end. That meant that on most surfaces the action of firing the gun would direct force through the trail into the ground, further entrenching the trail. A self entrenching mechanism, if you will. However, that shouldn't be taken as meaning the trails wouldn't be manually entrenched in prepared sites.