Jump to content

ALLIED : Gustav Line BETA AAR Round Two - Eye of the Elefant


Recommended Posts

So... here is the situation coming into the next turn:

8889017694_032e4f7954_b.jpg

... another inf screen unit is heading straight for the bazooka team, just on the very border of the HQ unit LOS. I have set a covered armour arc on the bazooka guys, centred on the tank, and the HQ unit has stopped hiding and is facing the inf screen guys.

Should be interesting...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Meanwhile, I have a tale of woe for my Baldrick ATG plan.

If you recall, I packed up and moved an ATG away, after it opened fire unsuccessfully on the Elefant on the Left Tit. That ATG was supposed to set up a short distance away from its original location, out of view of the Tits and watching the approach to Tame.

Unfortunately, it failed to deploy. I think that this is a bug: I have reported it to BFC. Upon arrival at it's new location, instead of deploying, the crew spun it around and around. This is the result....

8889036910_d0b3a5aeba_b.jpg

Sigh. Imagine if it had been deployed and facing in the correct direction (which in theory should have been 3 minutes after it arrived here, about 5 minutes ago). I guess you're not supposed to _move_ ATGs after they are set up!

On the left hand side, finally Bil's Spur Barrage arrived, right where my guys were a few turns ago.

8888453739_9c6effb1b5_b.jpg

Yay that I pulled back from there.

Strangely, nothing more fell on Hill 153. Bil's artillery planning is certainly hard to read, I'll give him that.

If it weren't for the artillery on Hill 153 last turn, it would seem like an unambiguous signal that forces are about to start pouring around the left end of The Spur. As it is, I'm not so sure. I have a tank sound way out to the left, that looks more like overwatch of Hill 153 than a Spur attack. Fortunately, it doesn't matter: I'm continuing to pull back, with the goal of having a modest solid force to face whatever comes, from whatever direction, without being skewered in a kill zone.

Lastly, JK asked for some bunker photos....

8889107866_c54ac90f95_b.jpg

8889109380_cd3a5cc2e2_b.jpg

In the first, the main thing I want to point out is that where the Elefant is right now is one of the places that Bil's whole right flank force passed - HTs and infantry - without this bunker spotting them.

GaJ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I dunno - what's the big deal about a bunker crew surviving an AP round popping in through the firing slit?

Sure, if you happen to be in the path then it's game over, but it's not like it's exploding in a ball of fire is it? What exactly _does_ happen when an AP round hits a concrete back wall?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well if it were HE it would go bang and everyone dies. This suggests that AP is used : )

The odds on getting clean through a slit I would think would be slight and therefore the shell would be tumbling and perhaps also blasting in some concrete debris at speed. However there is no reason why a single death could be the result. As for the HMG ...

I was wondering about bino's but I think whats illustrated is how poor HMG's are at range anyway so why give them bino's. Safe observation post maybe ....!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

About the 1070m LOS from the bunker to the Elefant: I notice that the bunker team has NO BINO'S!? Trying to spot men in tall grass almost 1,100m away can be a bit difficult. Binoculars may've been helpful.

Ken

FWIW, I had an HQ unit in the bunker as well, with binos, and they didn't spot either.

GaJ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Surprised that a 10 kg projectile, probably with burster charge, hitting the back wall of an enclosed bunker, at a shade under 1000m a second, only caused one casualty. I'd have though the explosion and secondary fragments would have made it highly likely that anyone in the bunker would have suffered some sort of injury.

Maybe BF only model serious injuries, that permanently remove the pixel trooper from the battle, so shallow lacerations, deafness (permanent/temporary) are factored into a unit being shocked. Plenty of accounts about soldiers fighting on with quite severe injuries. Might be interesting to find out what injuries are represented by that prone pixel troopers and which ones are factored in to the units current state.

Just read your post DT, so embrasure hit means, in close proximity to said embrasure, not a clean penetration. The spotting system seems to be a weak point of CM2, just had a veteran British sniper fail to locate an RPG team, even though it repositioned next to a regular recce unit, who had eyes on. In the same game, a hull down Challenger II only spotted a moving T-72 at 1000m, after the T-72 shot at it! I don't know what the problem is, but it fails the smell test. I'm sure there are instances of this lack of observation happening, I just question the frequency of it happening.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe BF only model serious injuries, that permanently remove the pixel trooper from the battle, so shallow lacerations, deafness (permanent/temporary) are factored into a unit being shocked. Plenty of accounts about soldiers fighting on with quite severe injuries. Might be interesting to find out what injuries are represented by that prone pixel troopers and which ones are factored in to the units current state.

Such minor injuries (beyond a broken fingernail, but alongwith which a trooper can stay mobile and in combat) are noted by the yellow weapon silhouette in the unit display pane, and are factored into the performance of the injured trooper in many respects: accuracy, fatigue/load carrying and morale have been mentioned, IIRC, by BFC in the past. I don't think BFC are going to get much more specific on their description of the wounding model.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Um, that'd be me: I sited it. I thought it was quite a good place, at the outset. So did the rest of you peanuts, if I recall correctly. No-one was saying "what a dumb plan, what dumb siting", it looked like it had legs.

<snip>

It completely failed because

<snip>

3) The bunkers failed to spot the infantry crossing their path

Yeah, big time bummer. I too thought your plan and bunker setup was good. Actually I thought our plan looked good - I am not sure if I would have created a better one so I was looking forward to you chewing up some of Bills forces. The whole thing with not spotting infantry and HTs is weird just weird. I am hoping after the singing is over and both sides can compare notes we can figure out why was up with that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, big time bummer. I too thought your plan and bunker setup was good. Actually I thought our plan looked good - I am not sure if I would have created a better one so I was looking forward to you chewing up some of Bills forces. The whole thing with not spotting infantry and HTs is weird just weird. I am hoping after the singing is over and both sides can compare notes we can figure out why was up with that.

Yep, the lack of Bunker spotting, and the surprising long-sightline visibilty of the bunkers through trees (IIRC) have hurt pretty bad. The reasons for "spotting contests" (like the M10 vs PzIV) going largely Bil's way are still a bit opaque I think.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just had a hull down Chally II only spot a T-72, moving across its front, after said T-72 fired at it, minutes before a sniper team failed to spot an RPG team, that a unit close by had already pinged. Worse, a textbook advance, overwatched by Chally II's, became a shambles as both tanks failed to spot three Saggers fired at the advancing mech infantry. The IDF reckoned they could spot such missiles 6-70% of the time, with 60's optics.

As I said previously, I understand, due to a myriad of real-world reasons, that spotting is not a given, but the frequency of, WTF, moments is starting to undermine the central premise of the game system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The defense rested on the premise that I could set up bunkers that would deny infantry access to the major approach routes, and that these would force armour into view that could be counter-attacked by M10s or taken out by sympathetically located ATGs.

Not a bad plan actually. Too bad it didn't work out that way. Some days you get the elevator, other days you get the shaft. What is needed is to figure out why it didn't work. What was the key to spotting that we all seem to have missed?

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well if it were HE it would go bang and everyone dies. This suggests that AP is used

Yeah, but even 88 mm AP has a bursting charge. I would expect the odds are that everyone in the bunker would be slightly wounded. Plus, you're right about the shell knocking chips off the concrete as it passes through the slit. It is just possible that it might not, but again the odds are against that. More wounds even if they are just superficial. In short, that hit should have put the bunker out of business (not that it was doing anything anyway).

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"What is needed is to figure out why it didn't work. What was the key to spotting that we all seem to have missed?"

That seems to assume that the system is perfect and all issues are human-player related. The LOS system is frustrating as it too frequently doesn't seem to mirror RL. I think most us would share in GAJ's frustration.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unexpectedly losing LOF is a common issue with bunkers. They have a certain LOF on initial placement then when you hit 'GO' they deform the terrain and settle into place. On flat land its hardly noticeable, on hillsides it can be the difference between open or blocked LOF. Building a scenario you can test your bunkers and relocate. In a QB purchase you've got one guess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Achilles heel of computer games alas, a set of written rules can always be amended by the gamer, as the calculations are transparent. With CM, and similar games, if a bug has crept in, or a calculation that generates ahistorical results has been used, the gamer is none the wiser and hopes a patch will sort out the problem.

Although it was touted as a celebration of the fidelity of the CM2 model, the reversed Tiger Commander problem worried me. What other LOS errors, inevitable with such a literal representation still lurked. The relative spotting also seems to be a problem with highly random results generated, certainly repositioning units closer to those who have spotted something is no guarantee they will pick it up quicker than a unit left to spot by itself. A somewhat frustrating experience.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Achilles heel of computer games alas, a set of written rules can always be amended by the gamer, as the calculations are transparent. With CM, and similar games, if a bug has crept in, or a calculation that generates ahistorical results has been used, the gamer is none the wiser and hopes a patch will sort out the problem.

Although it was touted as a celebration of the fidelity of the CM2 model, the reversed Tiger Commander problem worried me. What other LOS errors, inevitable with such a literal representation still lurked. The relative spotting also seems to be a problem with highly random results generated, certainly repositioning units closer to those who have spotted something is no guarantee they will pick it up quicker than a unit left to spot by itself. A somewhat frustrating experience.

Well, in my experience having C2 in place helps a LOT for a unit that wants to see the enemy that another unit can see. In fact, without C2 there is no passing along of information.

Not sure actually how that works if 2 units, both out of c2 to their commanders, are next to each other. Do they share info?

The bunker spotting looks strange indeed.

Whether spotting is too random.. I don't know, I generally experience CMx2 spotting as realistic with some randomnism thrown in. Which is good, IMO.

The bunker did spot the Elefant, perhaps only after firing? What is the experience of those bunker troops?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Surprised that a 10 kg projectile, probably with burster charge, hitting the back wall of an enclosed bunker, at a shade under 1000m a second, only caused one casualty. I'd have though the explosion and secondary fragments would have made it highly likely that anyone in the bunker would have suffered some sort of injury.

In short, that hit should have put the bunker out of business (not that it was doing anything anyway).

I don't have any numbers regarding the number of soldiers killed/wounded by AP shells penetrating bunkers, but in the general category of AP shell effects on soldiers in enclosed spaces I think tanks are a reasonably close comparison and we do have some data on them. The US Army did a study on their tanks lost in the ETO between June 6, 1944 and November 30 1944 that came up with a figure of 1.16 casualties per tank lost.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"What is needed is to figure out why it didn't work. What was the key to spotting that we all seem to have missed?"

That seems to assume that the system is perfect and all issues are human-player related. The LOS system is frustrating as it too frequently doesn't seem to mirror RL. I think most us would share in GAJ's frustration.

Isn't it just amazing that all the systems imperfections are working against GaJ.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...