This is why I stopped playing...

[YankeeDog]

You guys can defend it all you want and poke holes in my strategy, which was by the book fire and maneuver, but the bottom line is that it's poor game mechanics and a huge turn off. How so many people can say otherwise blows my mind.

Some will say "bad luck" and I can deal with that, but when it happens over and over, in multiple scenarios then its otherwise. As I said in my original post, this is why I stopped playing this game the first time.

Well, if the game isn't fun for you, then you should stop playing. No sense in beating your head against a wall. But if you think it's just a temporary thing, and would like some help working through your frustrations, by all means read on and I'll try to help if I can.

I certainly don't fault your tactics, at least in theory the approach you describe to the tactical situation is sound. In fact, your approach is more or less what I would have done in the same situation. However, since your results do not generally match mine, I suspect there are mistakes in your technical execution -- making proper use of the commands and tools the game gives you to get the most out of your virtual units.

To draw a comparison, you can be the most knowledgeable structural engineer in the world, and your blueprints for a bridge design may be sound. But if you don't know how to do a proper weld, you'll never erect a stable and strong bridge on your own.

Of course, IRL, engineers usually don't do their own welding. And IRL, Company commanders usually don't have to micromanage squad-level assault drill. But the fact of the matter is, CM in its present form requires the player to wear multiple hats, serving as both the overall tactical commander (Company or Platoon commanding officer, usually), *and* the leaders of the individual squads/vehicles/teams. Obviously, it isn't completely realistic to have one brain doing all of these jobs. But the game is what it is, and until we get an AI that is "smart" enough to execute lower level unit actions completely autonomously, we as players are going to have learn how to do a certain amount of micromanaging to be tactically successful at this game.

Anyway, if you want to post some pictures or other information showing more specifically how you are executing your fire and maneuver plan at the individual unit level, I'll see what I think and see if I can offer any helpful criticisms.

Cheers,

YD

[Apocalypse 31]

YD, thanks for hearing me out. I will post a concept sketch this afternoon when I get home.

[sburke]

YD, thanks for hearing me out. I will post a concept sketch this afternoon when I get home.

Turns saves would be best if you have them. If there is an anomaly, a theoretical discussion won't get too far.

[slysniper]

You guys can defend it all you want and poke holes in my strategy, which was by the book fire and maneuver, but the bottom line is that it's poor game mechanics and a huge turn off. How so many people can say otherwise blows my mind.

Some will say "bad luck" and I can deal with that, but when it happens over and over, in multiple scenarios then its otherwise. As I said in my original post, this is why I stopped playing this game the first time.

Well, since you cannot make sence of what others here are telling you, you better just set the game down again and move onto other things.

Because, it is not going to work to your logic and it appears you think your Logic is correct, so the game is never going to match that

The real question is, is your logic correct ??? I will add my vote to the No votes.

[Guest]

You guys can defend it all you want and poke holes in my strategy, which was by the book fire and maneuver, but the bottom line is that it's poor game mechanics and a huge turn off. How so many people can say otherwise blows my mind.

Some will say "bad luck" and I can deal with that, but when it happens over and over, in multiple scenarios then its otherwise. As I said in my original post, this is why I stopped playing this game the first time.

I'm not trying to poke holes in your strategy. What I'm saying is "book fire and maneuver" doesn't always succeed, right? All it takes is one unsuppressed guy with an MP40 to stop a squad assaulting, which is what it sounds like happened. So... is the fact that your assault failed a realism problem? I'm going to say no.

The flip side of this is that other people are complaining about the *exact* opposite effect. That indirect fire is far TOO effective. You can't both be right.... right? I think you're seeing plausible results.

[Crushingleeek]

I think the sense that I get from reading these, as well as published historical accounts, is that maybe indirect fire should be more effective at suppressing, and suppression should last longer after barrage ends, but at the same time, indirect fire should cause less casualties.

If so, I agree, but that's getting a little nit-picky, a sign of a great CBMN. We'll see when Cpt Mike provides screens.

IMO, the only thing, ONLY thing CMBN suffers from right now is lack of triggers to generate more realistic AI behaviors!!! plz plz plz.

[Apocalypse 31]

Turns saves would be best if you have them. If there is an anomaly, a theoretical discussion won't get too far.

Youre right. However, it was a real time game. I should've saved it, but after the platoon leader got killed by a single Mauser round I rage quit and did what any logical person would do and posted my dismay and anger on the game forums. But seriously, I'm done with this game. Ill go back to Close Combat and Battle Academy. Both games favor realistic strategy and tactics, and will reward those players who can apply them correctly. Mods please lock.

[Apocalypse 31]

I think the sense that I get from reading these, as well as published historical accounts, is that maybe indirect fire should be more effective at suppressing, and suppression should last longer after barrage ends, but at the same time, indirect fire should cause less casualties.

THIS!!! I absolutely agree. As I mentioned earlier, I've been on the receiving end of 57mm rockets. The thing about these types of rockets is that they produce relatively low amounts of shrapnel but will keep your head down.

A 105mm round landing 50m from you won't necessarily kill you, but you won't be 100% able to hold off an advancing squad armed with auto and semi automatic weapons.

[Childress]

I'm done with this game. Ill go back to Close Combat and Battle Academy. Both games favor realistic strategy and tactics, and will reward those players who can apply them correctly. Mods please lock.

Battle Academy? With the squares and abstracted ranges? That's like switching from Imperial Tokay to Bud Light.

[Agua]

If you try to go for the woods in the beginning of the mission it is a bad strategy as he found out. The woods should be left for last.

This is what I said in the first response to CPTMike. My repeated experience was the single platoon can't take that wooded hill. Deal with the town first and save the hill for last.

[Apocalypse 31]

Battle Academy? With the squares and abstracted ranges? That's like switching from Imperial Tokay to Bud Light.

Say what you want, but the game does alot of things right....like suppression. :-)

[Apocalypse 31]

This is what I said in the first response to CPTMike. My repeated experience was the single platoon can't take that wooded hill. Deal with the town first and save the hill for last.

Agua, you're missing the point. Its not about taking the hill. Its about the poor game mechanics and failure to model suppression correctly. IE - Pixeltruppen immune to the effects of 60mm and 105mm HE rounds exploding meters from them.

[sburke]

Say what you want, but the game does alot of things right....like suppression. :-)

Different game different stuff. Not my taste, but if you like that sort of thing go for it. Life's too short to spend on something you don't enjoy (one of these days I'll win the lottery and stop having to go to work...)

[akd]

I think the sense that I get from reading these, as well as published historical accounts, is that maybe indirect fire should be more effective at suppressing, and suppression should last longer after barrage ends, but at the same time, indirect fire should cause less casualties.

If so, I agree, but that's getting a little nit-picky, a sign of a great CBMN. We'll see when Cpt Mike provides screens.

IMO, the only thing, ONLY thing CMBN suffers from right now is lack of triggers to generate more realistic AI behaviors!!! plz plz plz.

Nothing gets changed through fits and rage quitting. I also suspect suppression from indirect fire is undermodeled. Luckily this is testable in the game (using TRPs and direct lay mortars to carefully place impacts) and we have some real world data to compare against tests. I've been meaning to set up a test, but short on time lately. Maybe I'll get around to it, or maybe somebody else will step up...

B-7. SUPPRESSIVE EFFECTS OF HIGH-EXPLOSIVE

MORTAR ROUNDS

Suppression from mortar is not as easy to measure as the target effect. It is an effect produced in the mind of the enemy that prevents him from returning fire or carrying on his duties. Inexperienced or surprised soldiers are more easily suppressed than experienced, warned soldiers. Soldiers in the open are much more easily suppressed than those with overhead cover. Suppression is most effective when mortar fires first fall; as they continue, their suppressive effects lessen. HE rounds are the most suppressive, but bursting WP mixed with HE has a great psychological effect on the enemy. Figure B-10 shows suppressive effects derived from live-fire studies and combat observations.

a. If a 60-mm mortar round lands within 20 meters of a target, the target will probably be suppressed, if not hit.

b. If a 60-mm mortar round lands within 35 meters of a target, there is a 50 percent chance it will be suppressed. Beyond 50 meters, little suppression takes place.

c. If an 81-mm mortar round lands within 30 meters of a target, the target will probably be suppressed, if not hit.

d. If an 81-mm mortar round lands within 75 meters of a target, there is a 50 percent chance that the target will be suppressed. Beyond 125 meters, little suppression takes place.

e. If a heavy mortar round (proximity-fuzed) lands within 65 meters of a target, the target will probably be suppressed, if not hit.

f. If a heavy mortar round (proximity-fuzed) lands within 125 meters of a target, there is a 50 percent chance the target will be suppressed. Beyond 200 meters, little suppression takes place. The 120-mm mortar round is better for suppression than the 107-mm, but both are excellent suppressive rounds.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/7-90/Appb.htm

Obviously the 120mm prox. round data is not relevant, but the 60mm and 81mm impact HE data should be comparable to their WWII counterparts (with an understanding that 1.) greater efficiency in fragmentation might marginally increase suppressive effects, and 2.) all this is within the great grey area of psychology).

[Amizaur]

Hm there is no LMG in the Vierville scenario. I've checked in the editor to see what was experience and motivation of the German troops that allowed them to resist so well. Experience Regular and motivation Normal.

But it's a six man HMG team and 3 man HQ team. If CaptMike saw 2 man, then maybe the rest was already dead. On the other hand, wouldn't a regular and not fanatic MG team that had lost 2/3 of his men to arty and supressing fire - rather think about withdrawal deeper into the woods, closer to other friendly forces, than stand on place and continue defending a position that is under mortar fire ?

[YankeeDog]

...charts

Obviously the 120mm prox. round data is not relevant, but the 60mm and 81mm impact HE data should be comparable to their WWII counterparts (with an understanding that 1.) greater efficiency in fragmentation might marginally increase suppressive effects, and 2.) all this is within the great grey area of psychology).

Yeah, I discovered those graphics a while back and spent some time contemplating what they meant in comparison to what I see in CMBN.

Problem is, they don't really specify what they mean by "suppression"; nor do they specificy what kind of cover (if any) the target is in.

Depending on these details, those results might be roughly equal to what I see in CMBN, or not...

[Amizaur]

And it doesn't say how long the supression effect of a single round lasts (I guess it's measured rather in seconds, soldier-dependant). Or how long the tactical effect of a whole barrage could last (about one minute?).

[Apocalypse 31]

Greater Fragmentation does not equal greater suppression. It is more likely to kill or wound. More explosive force would affect suppression. Its like getting punched in the face. The more explosive charge the bigger the fist. Something like that ...

[YankeeDog]

Greater Fragmentation does not equal greater suppression. It is more likely to kill or wound. More explosive force would affect suppression. Its like getting punched in the face. The more explosive charge the bigger the fist. Something like that ...

Well... that's complicated. I see your point that explosive force/concussion effects may, in many cases, be a stronger contributor to suppression than fragmentation. However, suppression is ultimately a psychological effect, so it can have many contributors. There is a reason, after all, why they call it "Steel Rain". Seeing/hearing hundreds of pieces of hot metal whizzing by you and impacting the ground around you certainly contributes to suppressive effect.

Other factors come into play, too. For example, in some situations incendiary weapons with very little blast or shrapnel have been shown to have a suppressive effect far beyond the area that they are capable of actually causing substantial wounds, due to the fear factor that fire creates.

[Pak40]

Ill go back to Close Combat and Battle Academy. Both games favor realistic strategy and tactics, and will reward those players who can apply them correctly. Mods please lock.

Battle Academy? With the squares and abstracted ranges? That's like switching from Imperial Tokay to Bud Light.

I agree. And Close Combat, which is a fun game that I've enjoyed since the 90's, but it has the most unrealistic artillery model of them all.

Honestly CPT_MIKE, I don't get you. You complain about the artillery not being realistic enough yet you'd rather play a game that gets nothing right about artillery.

And, BTW, I and many others on this forum have posted how real world tactics do work in CMBN. Like in real life, the tactics may reward the player or may not go as planned.

[noob]

Hey Cpt Mike, why don't you set up the tactical situation you mentioned at the start of this thread in the CMBN scenario editor and run it a few times as a two player hot seat game and see what the suppression is like from the Axis point of view, if there is a programming error your observations will be confirmed, if not, what you experienced was bad luck and not bad programming.

[gunnergoz]

I used to work in the courts and any day that my reports pissed off the judge, the DA and the defense attorney, I figured I must have gotten REAL close to the truth of what happened in a given case.

Same is true here. The game is so good it pisses off everybody. Much like real war.

[akd]

Yeah, I discovered those graphics a while back and spent some time contemplating what they meant in comparison to what I see in CMBN.

Problem is, they don't really specify what they mean by "suppression"; nor do they specificy what kind of cover (if any) the target is in.

Depending on these details, those results might be roughly equal to what I see in CMBN, or not...

If I recall correctly, some very rough initial tests suggested the deviation is significant. FM 7-90 says:

a. If a 60-mm mortar round lands within 20 meters of a target, the target will probably be suppressed, if not hit.

But I would observe the following in CMBN: If a 60-mm mortar round lands within 20 meters of a target, the target will probably not be suppressed, if not hit.

I would equate suppression with the "suppression meter" in the red zone, meaning the target remains "cowering" (hugging the ground, or in the bottom of their foxhole) until the meter recovers. Consequently, a individual/unit would not be able to observe or fight for the duration of a barrage of any reasonable intensity.

This has a very significant effect in the game, especially on units in foxholes/trenches. Because units are not effectively suppressed by indirect fire that has not caused a casualty, they are more likely to remain exposed, increasing the chances of subsequent rounds causing casualties, especially by FFE following a series of spotting rounds. This in turns devalues the surprise effect of registered (TRP) fire (at least against the AI).

[Rocky Balboa]

CPT Mike, just wanted a little clarification on what you wrote. In your OP you said

My 2nd squad begins its assault from the left flank. A German field gun delivers two rounds killing three of my men, but the assault squad continues its assault. A German HQ squad is spotted within close proximity of the German MG...not a big deal..my assault squad can deal with it, and besides, the Germans just took 15-20 rounds of 60mm and 105mm mix...

wrong

My assault squad gets repulsed by a German HQ squad. Not even close! I dont think my guys squeezed off a round.

Assuming you were assaulting with a full strength squad you lost 3 men initially to a IG which would have reduced your squad strength by around 25% but you still felt confident that your assault squad could take the objective.

I'm also assuming that the intervention of the IG caused your squad to take cover to some extent which probably gave the Germans an opportunity to recover from the suppression. However, your squad also had to recover from suppression as well to continue the assault. What was the length of time it took your men to recover from the IG. Was this realistic or unrealistic in your opinion?

You mentioned that your assault was repulsed but didn't mention any other casualties. So did your pixel troops break without taking additional casualties or was there some additional fire before reaching the objective that caused them to fail?

[YankeeDog]

If I recall correctly, some very rough initial tests suggested the deviation is significant. FM 7-90 says:

But I would observe the following in CMBN: If a 60-mm mortar round lands within 20 meters of a target, the target will probably not be suppressed, if not hit.

You sure about that? Assuming no intervening cover like bocage or a wall, my experience is that a 60mm shell falling within 3 action spots of a unit usually causes at least some suppression to said unit -- that is, one or more of the soldiers in the unit go to "cowering" as a result of the shell detonation.

Now, the suppression may be fairly mild, and it may not last more than a few seconds, but IME there is at least some effect from a 60mm shell this close. Like I said earlier, it all depends on what your threshold is for "suppression". Is a few soldiers in the unit going heads down for a few seconds "suppression", or does some higher threshold need to be met? If so, what should the base threshold be?