Gustav Line Beta AAR Round Two PEANUT GALLERY

[Michael Emrys]

Michael Emrys,

Were you at the other one, the CMAK Demo? Would swear I met you at one of the private Demos, and have been to only two.

Nope. Never been to any demo. If I had, you would remember, I promise.

Michael

[John Kettler]

Michael Emrys,

Thanks and gah! Wish I could remember who it was. For sure it was someone with a fairly high Forum presence.

BFC,

Do you happen to have a list of attendees at the CMBB and CMAK Demos held at Actor's house in Corona, California? Am trying to figure out whom I met there I already "knew" from the (then much smaller) Forum.

Regards,

John Kettler

[ASL Veteran]

John, when are you going to buy Fortress Italy? BTW, I was at the CMBB demo in Southern California so you may have met me. I seriously doubt if there are any records of the attendees laying about in a dusty vault at BFC HQ. I don't recall there ever being any CMAK demos though.

[John Kettler]

ASL Veteran,

When I a) have an economy again and have figured out what I'm doing by playing CMBN a lot. Truly, I'm fortunate to have CMBN mit CW, and well do I know it. I really need to get the 2.0 upgrade, then install the 2.01 patch. But hey, I now have a win in CMBN. Woo hoo! Hardly makes up for four losses, plus a Draw. ROW material I'm not. Yet.

Good to know you were at the Actor-hosted CMBB gala. What fun! I recall somehow beating the Germans using a Green T-34 and Conscript troops, but we're talking my memory here. There was a door knocker ATG and an effort to immolate my tank with Molotov cocktails, but as I recall, the tank crushed the gun and we passed right through the German position.

I want to say I met Patboy, the guy who did the CMBO Sea Lion mod, but wouldn't swear to it. For sure, I met some of the then-prominent/still-prominent Forumites there. Turning now to the CMAK Demo, I definitely attended one in SoCal and am pretty sure Actor hosted it, too. I distinctly remember seeing Fruehlingswind (absolutely unpronounceable by me then) being demoed and people oohing and aahing over the then-revolutionary and amazing vehicle generated dust and all the new toys. The vast sere expanse also remains in my memory, which is nowhere nearly as detailed as my CMBB experience. Am not even sure I played the CMAK Demo. Have the nagging feeling something came up, causing me to leave early and unwillingly.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Michael Emrys]

Have the nagging feeling something came up, causing me to leave early and unwillingly.

The arrival of the police?

Michael

[Brindlewolf]

The arrival of the police?

Michael

LOL Epic

[Ron]

I'm not sure what some are trying to sell, but it is becoming apparent here and in GAJ's AAR that a few either do not play this game much or at all, or simply do not like it. Whether CMx1 or CMx2, you get out of it what you put into it and to do well you need to invest your time and energy.

Playing defense has its challenges but it also has its opportunites like I pointed out earlier in regards the Tits location. Some of GAJ's mistakes are very basic and would be equally punished in CMx1 as well. Driving a couple tanks up to a crest and hoping for a favourable outcome is simply not good tactics. Neither was the latest 'ambush' with the Team, HQ and Bazooka - better tactics would have been layering that with a MG further back which would have opened up first to eliminate the Scout, suppress the TC and suppress any accompanying infantry. Once that got the enemies attention, then open up with your closer assets and hope to take out the distracted tank with the bazooka. Does it always work? No, but I can guarantee from experience I get more favourable outcomes with that than what occured.

Again all basic stuff learned from the first Combat Mission.

Looking at the big picture - Bil's latest maneuvers to corral and pocket the defenders behind the Spur is genius. His sudden increase in tempo is masterful in keeping GAJ off balance. This AAR really highlights that military dictum and is a great learning tool to improve one's play. Boring? Boring would be to simply see two forces smash together in a series of pretty explosions.

[Vark]

That is of course if your perfectly sited MG can spot its target, it's this level of uncertainty that causes the problem. I've had textbook combined assaults, with supporting assets, breakdown because of repeated spotting irregularities.

I have no problem with BF simulating the occasional glitch, but the frequency of spotting problems is now becoming, for me, annoying. I agree GaJ's approach has been spotty at best, but Bil has had too many let offs. The recent myopic bunker and faulty deployment of a critical asset the latest.

Personally, I loved CM1, was wary about CM2, but have grown to love its greater flexibility and be annoyed by the seemingly random spotting, in equal measure. I get the feeling though, that the increasingly hostile response to any suggestion of inherent game issues, is not a good omen.

[ASL Veteran]

Personally, I loved CM1, was wary about CM2, but have grown to love its greater flexibility and be annoyed by the seemingly random spotting, in equal measure. I get the feeling though, that the increasingly hostile response to any suggestion of inherent game issues, is not a good omen.

There are plenty of issues with CMx2, there is no doubt about that. However, in the case of this AAR exactly how would the game mechanics be tilted towards favoring Bil over GaJ? The game doesn't know that Bil is playing it and so there is no "Bil is playing Axis so let's give the Axis a spotting advantage during this game." computation that's being done by the game. So if someone thinks there are spotting irregularities they are going to need to come up with something better than that or it's just going to look like .... well it's going to look like whining and blaming the game for your own mistakes.

One thing that GaJ even acknowledged was that he was unaware of the importance of the HQ unit for his Tank Destroyers. Apparently he didn't retain it because he didn't value it's combat power. Unfortunately for GaJ the HQ unit had the radio so his TDs apparently can't share spotting information because he left the HQ back in the rear. So how well over all was GaJ paying attention to keeping units within C2 and how well were his units sharing spotting information with each other. Also, how many pairs of eyes did GaJ have on any specific location as opposed to how many pairs of eyes Bil had? More eyes equals better spotting and better command and control equals better information sharing. Could it possibly be the case that Bil is simply performing those simple tasks better than GaJ? I guess it depends on what someone feels is more likely - the German player has an inherent spotting advantage in Combat Mission or Bil is handling his troops in a superior manner to his opponent. In their first AAR Bil was playing as Allied and he seemed to be spotting better than GaJ in that game as well.

[womble]

...repeated spotting irregularities.

One man's spotting irregularities are another man's misunderstanding of factors that affecting spotting at that time.

...faulty deployment of a critical asset the latest.

AIUI, they're playing with a beta cut, but if that failure to deploy was another "deployment" glitch (like the ones some people are seeing with MGs, or the old "crewman running off into the distance", that makes it into production code, it doesn't reflect well on QC.

...annoyed by the seemingly random spotting...

How come I don't think the spotting is random? Could it possibly be something to do with how different people play the game, do you think? As opposed to something systematic?

I get the feeling though, that the increasingly hostile response to any suggestion of inherent game issues, is not a good omen.

Thing is it's not "any suggestion", it's "any suggestion that's pure anecdote without control." Such observations are necessarily coloured by observer bias: you remember the times it didn't work how you thought it ought, and don't remember the times it worked exactly how you expected. BFC aren't dilatory: they'll test things that are reported as broken, but if you don't help them by providing the exact conditions under which the "error" occurs, they run a fair chance of not finding it when it's a seriously subtle edge condition.

What we're seeing in this game is that Bil operates the spotting engine better than GaJ does. There are some results that are somewhat surprising (long grass concealment and bunker spotting) but those are a long way from inexplicable or broken; they're just not the effects the player expected.

[A Canadian Cat]

OK let me ask the question that needs asking - cause I want to know. What is it that GAJ did wrongly or poorly so that his forces failed to spot Bill's infantry in the open?

It is a serious question. For the last couple of days we have been doing the "spotting in game is broken" / "stop complaining there is nothing wrong" dance. Yawn, heard it before.

There could be stuff broken - it is possible. But there is defiantly stuff we can learn here too. For example the recent discussion about bunkers deforming the hill slightly. Or the fact that GAJ did not have the HQ unit for his TD platoon.

So, lets start with a specific example. Several times GAJ thought his guys had good visibility into an open kill zone and Bill's infantry just disappeared into it. What did Bill do that was so good in those cases and what could GAJ have done differently? Seriously I am at a loss for ideas.

[Vark]

Hit the nail on the head. I don't think the spotting is broken, but at the moment it leaves players with a nagging uncertainty that basic tactics will fail to work. This uncertainty, 'what am, I doing wrong', is bound to impact on the enjoyment the games undoubtedly give.

[womble]

OK let me ask the question that needs asking - cause I want to know. What is it that GAJ did wrongly or poorly so that his forces failed to spot Bill's infantry in the open?

It is a serious question. For the last couple of days we have been doing the "spotting in game is broken" / "stop complaining there is nothing wrong" dance. Yawn, heard it before.

There could be stuff broken - it is possible. But there is defiantly stuff we can learn here too. For example the recent discussion about bunkers deforming the hill slightly. Or the fact that GAJ did not have the HQ unit for his TD platoon.

So, lets start with a specific example. Several times GAJ thought his guys had good visibility into an open kill zone and Bill's infantry just disappeared into it. What did Bill do that was so good in those cases and what could GAJ have done differently? Seriously I am at a loss for ideas.

I don't think we can answer that without the specific map and turn situations. It could be down to pTruppe experience levels, or just spotting expectations at range with no vision aids. Or because the spotter went prone at the wrong time. The stealth half tracks are a bit of a puzzle.

[John Kettler]

Here's something that would, I think, be good to know.

Does GL treat the TD transceiver situation the same way as it is for the Shermans?

Because of enormous demand for radios, only the Sherman PL and APL had transceivers, while the other tanks in the platoon had only radio receivers. If the M10 radio situation is like that, then we may be onto something, since sans HQ that would mean exactly one TD in the platoon (APL) capable of passing spots by radio to other defending units.

The Standard Catalogue of Ordnance Items shows the M10 as equipped with either the SCR-510 or SCR-610, both of which are transceivers. The same source shows Shermans equipped with SCR-508 transceivers for the typical tanks, while command tanks had SCR-506 transceivers. Maybe said reference should include the word "ideally" in the materiel descriptions?

I strongly suspect the M10s were no better off than the Shermans when it came to the transceiver situation, but have no direct information on this. Does anyone else?

Unless the crew is hunkered down to avoid being shot/franged by mortars and artillery, in theory the M10 should be pretty good at spotting. TC with binocs, gunner with main sight and others with Eyeball, MK 1. The TD manuals clearly show that everyone has assigned surveillance zones, which buttresses my assertion.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Michael Emrys]

Does GL treat the TD transceiver situation the same way as it is for the Shermans?

Because of enormous demand for radios, only the Sherman PL and APL had transceivers, while the other tanks in the platoon had only radio receivers. If the M10 radio situation is like that, then we may be onto something, since sans HQ that would mean exactly one TD in the platoon (APL) capable of passing spots by radio to other defending units.

That strikes me as a bit odd if true. How are subordinate vehicles supposed to be able to report to their leaders if their radios cannot transmit? The only place I have read this factoid so far is in these pages and that only in the last few months. Not declaring you are wrong, John, I have at the moment no information one way or the other on this issue. It just seems...odd.

Michael

[John Kettler]

Michael Emrys,

Am pretty sure I first encountered this at www.tankbooks.com (Tanks for the Memories), but if you read the combat accounts, even from the Western Desert, you'll read of a leader unhorsed, who then boots a junior leader. This is because unless he has a command tank, he can't talk at all to higher echelons on those nets. I've read of a leader who boots no less than four subordinates during a single daylong battle for the very same reason.

But we don't have to do all that work, because Mr. Zaloga is singularly helpful in this regard. Page 11, bottom in his Sherman Medium Tank 1942-45. Until late 1944, the situation regarding in-platoon transceivers was pretty much as I described.

http://tinyurl.com/k4grjbv

Would further note that the M10 and the M4 Sherman both came standard with Flag Set, M238. Useful, I'd think, when there is a need for a receiver-only M10 or Sherman needed to pass info back up the chain to someone who can transmit!

Regards,

John Kettler

[slysniper]

OK let me ask the question that needs asking - cause I want to know. What is it that GAJ did wrongly or poorly so that his forces failed to spot Bill's infantry in the open?

It is a serious question. For the last couple of days we have been doing the "spotting in game is broken" / "stop complaining there is nothing wrong" dance. Yawn, heard it before.

There could be stuff broken - it is possible. But there is defiantly stuff we can learn here too. For example the recent discussion about bunkers deforming the hill slightly. Or the fact that GAJ did not have the HQ unit for his TD platoon.

So, lets start with a specific example. Several times GAJ thought his guys had good visibility into an open kill zone and Bill's infantry just disappeared into it. What did Bill do that was so good in those cases and what could GAJ have done differently? Seriously I am at a loss for ideas.

Good question, likely no clear answers. thus the reason people complain. It is no longer a game you can master knowing if your unit will spot the enemy. No matter how many hours of play you have, the game is constantly suprising you as to if units see or do not see enemy units.

The sad thing is, it is more realistic to RL than knowing for sure that your unit will spot in certain situations, which most think is better because they only know how games in the past have done it. But I can think of field training I had where many times I could not spot the enemy, even knowing they were out there. Sometimes even when they were firing and still not able to spot them. So maybe that is why I dont get too upset with how the game works presently.

As for what was done that might be factors.

GAJ was expecting sighting enemy units at too great of a range, exspecially for infantry. I find infantry can move to well within 100 meters in grasses and not give clear identifications to the enemy.

Beyond his power was the fact he really did not have enough units to cover all the ground he needed to defend and thus spread himself out which created more problems in that his units could not work together in the command structure.

But beyond that, not much. His AT guns showed up easy, WTF. I am playing a battle right now where the enemy has had 6 guns all in tall grass and or wheat, and let me tell you. not one of them guns has shown up to my units spotting until after they have fired multiple shots or I have moved almost on top of them.And I had more units than Bil is using and much closer to the guns, so plenty of eyes ( but the main trick with that is to place the guns so that the enemy must look through 3-4 hexes of grass, you want the unit as deep as you can get it in the grass and still see out and fire, I am not sure, but GAJ guns looked like they sat at locations where they hardly had any grass in front of them, maybe same hex or a hex in front for concealment, that is not enough.

As for tank and halftracks and trucks and such, I have nothing to say, the game just did what the game does at times. But if I am going to engage the enemy intentionally, I want to come up on their flank or rear, if not, then I better have the numbers in my favor, hopefully 2-1 or better or I will not do it unless desperate. GAJ , does not follow that rule, he places his units in situations where it is luck that requires the firefight win. Whereas, Bil is constantly looking for that type of advantage plus makes sure to have combined arms for the unexpected. You never want to be caught with the wrong match up

[weta_nz]

I had one thought regarding GAJ's spotting woes - if the team in the bunker had binoculars maybe they would have seen Bill's infantry crossing in front of it. (I'm not sure if they did or not, nor how it is modeled in the game - but just a thought). Actually I'm sure there was a screenshot with the team stat's shown and no binocs.

Found screenshot - it's the last screenshot on Pg65 of GAJ's AAR.

[dieseltaylor]

weta nz - Thanks for seeking the photo.

BTW on the tight hand side of each post is the number for the post - yours here is 418. I have the maximum posts per page chosen so I am now on page 20 in the AAR and you are quoting page 65 .....

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showpost.php?p=1446479&postcount=418

: )

[womble]

His AT guns showed up easy, WTF. I am playing a battle right now where the enemy has had 6 guns all in tall grass and or wheat, and let me tell you. not one of them guns has shown up to my units spotting until after they have fired multiple shots or I have moved almost on top of them.

ATG visibility depends heavily on which ATG it is. The 76mm has memorably been described as a "moose", and much easier to see than say a Pak40 or 57mm.

[dieseltaylor]

GAJ was expecting sighting enemy units at too great of a range, especially for infantry. I find infantry can move to well within 100 meters in grasses and not give clear identifications to the enemy.

His AT guns showed up easy, WTF. I am playing a battle right now where the enemy has had 6 guns all in tall grass and or wheat, and let me tell you. not one of them guns has shown up to my units spotting until after they have fired multiple shots or I have moved almost on top of them.And I had more units than Bil is using and much closer to the guns, so plenty of eyes ( but the main trick with that is to place the guns so that the enemy must look through 3-4 hexes of grass, you want the unit as deep as you can get it in the grass and still see out and fire, I am not sure, but GAJ guns looked like they sat at locations where they hardly had any grass in front of them, maybe same hex or a hex in front for concealment, that is not enough.

slysniper

I get the feeling that a casual player, particularly if they do not read the forums, has a monumental learning curve?

Incidentally you mention not spotting firing tanks without giving a concept of range - also we know the Allies had a smoky propellant. Perhaps you could flesh out your experience.

[John Kettler]

dieseltaylor,

Unless BFC has quietly changed something, to the best of my knowledge, none of the CMx2 WW II games or modules models the German smokeless/flashless powder advantage, despite direct statements from our people at the time on how difficult it was to detect German weapon fire. Thus, both sides have smoky propellant in the game.

Regards,

John Kettler

[weta_nz]

weta nz - Thanks for seeking the photo.

BTW on the tight hand side of each post is the number for the post - yours here is 418. I have the maximum posts per page chosen so I am now on page 20 in the AAR and you are quoting page 65 .....

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showpost.php?p=1446479&postcount=418

: )

Thanks Deiseltaylor for pointing that out . It's the last screenshot of post #650 in GAJ's AAR

Any thoughts on if bino's would have made a difference?

[womble]

...German smokeless/flashless powder advantage, despite direct statements from our people at the time on how difficult it was to detect German weapon fire. Thus, both sides have smoky propellant in the game.

Wasn't it the flashless part that gave the advantage? The Lee Enfield at least was using smokeless powder from WW1 onwards. Or was it merely a matter of degree: less smoke vs no smoke at all?

[Ron]

ian.leslie - More eyes spotting for one, more eyes spotting in C2 for another and finally unit stance and placement. No one comments on the fact Bil lost two halftracks or his TD took several hits without him ever spotting the source. Instead an uproar about Bil spotting a 'concealed' AT gun which was anything but. I have frustratingly seen AT guns go unspotted after firing many times and the why was it comes down to placement and/or lack of units spotting. It can be done.

As noted by ASL Veteran, I also think people are really underestimating the importance of C2 in sharing spotting information. In my experience it makes a huge difference in the intel picture. From the screenshots I have seen, many of GAJ's units were out of the C2 loop. Hiding units do not spot as well - not as many eyes.

Bil is very adept at using terrain to mask his units movement. It doesn't really raise my eyebrows the MG bunker did not spot his infantry in the tall grass at 1km+. Is CM problem free here - no, probably not, but my experience the spotting is generally very realistic with some randomness thrown in. Isolated that may not appear so but in the end it is good in my opinion. It definitely does not negate the system as some seem to suggest based on their anecdotes.