Artillery Effectiveness against Infantry too high ? tests included

[siffo998]

hello all,

after playing a lot john tiller games (including the panzer campaign games) i`ve had quite a bit of comparison between CM2 and PC. In CM2 i always wondered how a single artillery strike could cause that much casualties especially if the troops were dug in. break their morale: sure but that much casualties seemed a bit high.

Now after playing the PC games i discovered a big difference in casualty numbers from artillery shelling. for that reason i`ve set up a simple test using almost the same parameters.

first test in tunisia43 from the PC series:

1x german artillery 10,5 cm LH18 (4 Guns) firing at an american infantry company (2 hexes away, indirect fire), Morale D which is lower than regular (192 men).

Ground conditions in the target area are clear and the infantry is entrenched (40% bonus).

i`ve rerun the situation four times and here are the casualty numbers for the american company after the shelling:

first test run: 2 casualties

second test run: 1 casualty

third test run: 2 casualties

fourth test run: 3 cacualties

No disruption of the unit in any test run.

Please keep in mind that one turn in this PC scenario was 2 hours of time so i guess we can say that the shelling continued for the whole time.

now second test using CMBN:

I`ve set up a scenario using a open quick battle map (around 1 km wide which is in translation the same size of one hexagon in PC).

i`ve used one american infantry company (regular, -1 leadership, low morale to get the same results as in PC with morale D, 121 men) and placed it entrenched 400m around the objective area in the center of the map. now i`ve placed one german FO (with 10,5 artillery LH18, 4 guns, 150 shells, experience regular) on a hill at the edge of the map and shelled the american position using an target area command. I wanted to command both sides and therefore used hotseat option. i`ve just placed the americans inside the trenches and gave no further commands the whole time. after around 10-15 minutes the whole 150 shells of the artillery were gone.

here are the casualty numbers after 10-15 minutes of shelling:

first test: 28 KIA, 15 WIA, most of the company broken or rattled.

second test: 24 KIA, 28 WIA, most of the company broken or rattled.

now i`ve used the same setup and ran a third test giving all the americans inside their trenches a hide command. here are the casualty numbers:

0 KIA, 3 WIA, no one broken or rattled.

my 10 cents:

both games aim for historical accuracy but theirs quite the difference when you compare both systems. given the fact that PC tries to recreate a operational experience their casualty numbers seem to be more realistic. right now in cmbn you can buy a big park of artillery an bomb a dug-in defending force into nirvana without even using assaulting troopers.

seems like the hide command makes a big difference but even then theirs still the question why the TacAI goes not automatically into hide when a big shelling starts (life preservation!). i`ve even seen troops during the first two tests jump out of their trenches and running around (after going broken or rattled) which happened in realty too but these troops in my tests were dug-in inside trenches... its the safest place to be. in my opinion a hide command should not make such a big difference. The TacAI should automatically force the troops to keep theirs heads down while shelling (at least regular infantry and higher). I know that the "Artillery is too effective discussion" is around quite a while but what do you think about these results?

[womble]

...comparison between CM2 and PC...

Well there's a huge number of problems there, just to start with. You have absolutely no idea what assumptions are being made in PC.

...Given the fact that PC tries to recreate a operational experience their casualty numbers seem to be more realistic...

On what are you basing that assessment? When I see the amount of HE dropping out of the sky in a CM2 bombardment, it seems completely realistic to me.

...I`ve set up a simple test using almost the same parameters.

It's a near certainty that this statement is incorrect. For starters "entrenched" in a game with a larger operational scale than CM will almost certainly include more elaborate fortifications than are modelled by foxholes and trenches in CM: overhead cover, proper dugout shelters and the like. You've not provided enough information to determine the deployment density of the troops being targetted, or the actual number of rounds fired.

...one turn in this PC scenario was 2 hours of time so i guess we can say that the shelling continued for the whole time.

Or it might just be the equivalent of a "Quick" mission, firing one or two rounds per tube. Is that defined anywhere in the PC information?

now second test using CMBN:

...map (around 1 km wide which is in translation the same size of one hexagon in PC)...entrenched around 400m around the objective area in the center of the map.

If that's the middle 400m, the troops are too densely clumped to cover a frontage of 1km. Their small arms effective ranges wouldn't overlap with a similarly placed company "one hex over", and even on a clear map there would likely be huge dead zones that an enemy could advance through without being effectively resisted.

...150 shells...

For my money, this is the biggest unknown in this comparison. You appear to be working solely on the assumption that the PC fire mission is in any way comparable in weight of HE to that of a "Maximum" mission from a similar CM asset. Of course you might be correct in that assumption, but on the presented evidence, there's no reason to think that you are.

now i`ve used the same setup and ran a third test giving all the americans inside their trenches a hide command. here are the casualty numbers:

0 KIA, 3 WIA, no one broken or rattled.

So your only complaint is actually:

...why [does] the TacAI goes not automatically into hide when a big shelling starts[?]...

To which the answer is probably: "Because the player may well want them to keep their heads up to deal with the follow-on troops."

..."Artillery is too effective..."

Isn't actually what you're discussing. You're talking about the TacAI's responses to threat. The comparison with CP is frankly irrelevant because no variables are controlled across the two games, and you're not offering any facts to back up the greater realism of one or other platform. That a Hiding CM company takes similar casualties to a PC company suggests that actually the variables are perhaps somewhat comparable, and the designers both based their general effect tuning on the same sources. The difference between the two games is that in CM you have the option of not hiding some or all units, whereas in CP, you don't have that fine grained control, so the designer has to assume that your troops will be keeping their heads down.

[siffo998]

Isn't actually what you're discussing. You're talking about the TacAI's responses to threat. The comparison with CP is frankly irrelevant because no variables are controlled across the two games, and you're not offering any facts to back up the greater realism of one or other platform.

not true. most of the variables are compareable:

1) company size on both platforms.

2) experience level about the same.

3) same artillery pieces used (number of tubes and type)

4) company is entrenchend. in PC theirs a additional entrechment level called bunker so i guess entrenched is practicably the same as in CM2. by the way it seems like CM2 also uses abstracted overhead protection in trenches. for example multiple hits inside the trench with units in hide resulted in no casualties.

we are talking about around 40% casualties in 10-15 minutes of artillery shelling (only 4 tubes of 10,5cm) against a entrenched postion in the CMBN tests. do you really think that is realistic? a company hit that hard is rendered useless on a operational level. i`ve never ever heard or red of any compareable situation where 4 tubes of artillery of that size caused that much havoc against a entrenched position. Just for comparison in the "End in Africa" (final assault on tobruk) scenario in PC the Brits massing around 120 tubes of 25 pounders artillery against a front area with three entrenched FJ companies. Even than a single two hour turn can hardly cause 40% casualties to one of these companies.

how on earth could the germans have held for example the gustav line for about three month when a single artillery strike of four tubes rendered a whole company useless ?

[Baneman]

...

how on earth could the germans have held for example the gustav line for about three month when a single artillery strike of four tubes rendered a whole company useless ?

Because the Germans on the Gustav Line knew to hide

Seriously, I must agree with Womble here - the only discrepancy you've really shown is that without an explicit Hide command, the casualties appear large.

Which is a complaint about the TacAI behaviour, not artillery effectiveness.

And I can't see that it's much of a complaint - we as players get to use or not use the Hide command to mitigate artillery casualties. And we can use the knowledge to really hurt the AI when playing single-player.

[siffo998]

Because the Germans on the Gustav Line knew to hide

Seriously, I must agree with Womble here - the only discrepancy you've really shown is that without an explicit Hide command, the casualties appear large.

Which is a complaint about the TacAI behaviour, not artillery effectiveness.

And I can't see that it's much of a complaint - we as players get to use or not use the Hide command to mitigate artillery casualties. And we can use the knowledge to really hurt the AI when playing single-player.

true point maybe i should rename the headline for my thread to "strange TacAi behaviour during artillery shelling" or "trenches in CMBN are uneffective during artillery shelling without Hide command". But still the difference on a higher operational level is quite visible. 40% casualties even when placed inside a trench is ridiculous. like i said a company thats hit that hard is useless on a operational scale. and all that only because you havent hit the "hide" button (which is hard when the shells are hitting your position during a minute turn). i think i will retest the situation without cover or trenches...

[General Jack Ripper]

... Said a lot of words trying to compare an operational level game, with a tactical level game ...

- Message removed due to self control -

Please don't try to directly compare an operational level game to a tactical level game.

- Good day sir.

[YankeeDog]

The Computer Player's inability to effectively use the "Hide" command to reduce casualties from artillery is definitely an issue, but I don't think it's the the only reason for the discrepancy in these test results. And I can see how the hide issue would be a difficult one to fix. How heavy should the artillery concentration be before units hide? How long should they stay hidden? What if they're currently engaged? If not properly balanced, a "Hide under arty fire" SOP could result in being able to effectively neuter computer-controlled units with just a light, harassing concentration.

Really, there are all sorts of problems with this comparison. In addition to what's already been mentioned, another major problem is that (if I read the setup correctly), the CMBN test assumes near-perfect artillery targeting by the Germans, while the PC setup probably does not.

The PC setup is much more abstracted than the CMBN setup -- In a nutshell, a German artillery battery is dropping some unknown number of shells into a 1km x 1km hex over a period of 2 hours. Somewhere inside the hex there is an entrenched American infantry company. This is all we really know.

While we don't know exactly what the PC game designer had in mind when he designed the rules for this type of situation, if he was going for realism, it would definitely not be the most realistic abstraction to assume that the German artillery was able to exactly target the footprint of the American positions. Rather, in the most typical situation, the Germans would probably have some general idea of where the American infantry company was, but would not know that they were exactly "entrenched 400m around an objective area in the center of the map." So if the goal of the artillery shoot was general suppression and attrition of the American force, the German artillery target area would be larger to account for uncertainty as to enemy location. The artillery would probably not be targeted over the entire 1km x 1km map -- recon and some intelligent guesswork would allow the Germans to refine the target somewhat -- but the intended target area would almost certainly be larger than 400mx400m. Maybe double, or even triple this area.

In WWII, it was very rare to know *exactly* where enemy positions were. Even if there was good observation and the line of contact had been static for a while, entrenched forces almost always set up alternate & fallback positions, dummy entrenchments to confuse the enemy, etc. And units moved frequently within defensive lines to keep the enemy guessing. Not surprisingly, defending forces often shifted positions after a firefight, on the knowledge that positions which been revealed by opening fire were likely to be very shortly targeted by artillery.

So even with good knowledge of enemy trenches, bunkers, and so on, it was difficult to know which positions were occupied, and which were not, at any specific time.

So... imagine the CMBN test again, with the artillery target area at, say, 800m x 400m, and the American positions contained somewhere therein, or something like this. My guess is that this would be closer to the conditions more abstractly represented in the PC setup.

In WWII, an awful lot of artillery was thrown around at where the enemy was generally thought to probably be. An operational game like PC has to take this into account with abstractions. A more detailed tactical sim like CMBN does not -- if the player wants to engage in speculative artillery targeting, he can via turn 1 concentrations. If he wants to try to precisely locate enemy positions before letting loose with arty, he can do that too. And the defender can execute countermeasures to either of these tactics. To avoid speculative fire, setup in unexpected locations. To avoid getting nailed arty fire after contact, move.

[womble]

not true. most of the variables are compareable:

1) company size on both platforms.

Nothing is known about the density of deployment in the PC game.

2) experience level about the same.

Experience level only makes a small difference to casualties suffered in CM. Morale level (because the panic and leave the dubious safety of their trenches) is far more important.

3) same artillery pieces used (number of tubes and type)

And nothing is known about how many rounds are fired in the PC game. Doesn't matter how many of what are used if you don't know the unit of fire: you can wipe out a company with 1 47mm Brixia and enough rounds; 1 240mm rocket won't kill more than a squad or two.

4) company is entrenchend...in PC theirs a additional entrechment level called bunker so i guess entrenched is practicably the same as in CM2. by the way it seems like CM2 also uses abstracted overhead protection in trenches. for example multiple hits inside the trench with units in hide resulted in no casualties.

To repeat myself: you have not elucidated what PC conisders to be "entrenched". It has been stated by BFC (you know, the guys that make the game) that the variety and scale of CM fortifications represents "hasty" fortifications, and you can see for your very own self that "trenches" in CM include no overhead protection (which omission would be rare in the sort of trench systems that an operational game would provide the scale to permit the construction of). There's a lot of ground between "hasty foxholes" and "bunkers". The protection given by Hiding against bursts inside trenches is almost certainly due to the posture of the potential victims.

we are talking about around 40% casualties in 10-15 minutes of artillery shelling (only 4 tubes of 10,5cm) against a entrenched postion in the CMBN tests. do you really think that is realistic?

Well, yes, if they didn't keep their heads down. As I've already said, they certainly could have done so. There's no way after the first minute that every single unit was in a state where they refused orders to Hide. Just because you're given the control over your units and you elected not to use it doesn't mean that the casualty modelling is incorrect.

...a company hit that hard is rendered useless on a operational level...

Hooray. A true but irrelevant observation.

how on earth could the germans have held for example the gustav line for about three month when a single artillery strike of four tubes rendered a whole company useless ?

Easy. Their commanders let them keep their heads down while the steel rain was falling. Oh look: 3 casualties, none fatal. Yay. Gustav Line holds for 90 days.

You're arguing that the TacAI should keep heads down under artillery fire. You may be correct, but trying to prove it by comparing it to another game where vitally important factors are not controlled is just a waste of everyone's time.

[Sublime]

Yes Siffo your tests are fundamentally flawed. You cant compare two video games at all in tests like these. Theres no benchmark to judge everything off of, like say in a test in real life where everything in the world is basically operating under the same rules of physics, etc. As pointed out above, the missions duration and density of targets could vary wildly. One game you're using has hexes - how could that at all translate into CM when the troops could really be spread or bunched anywhere on the hex, you cannot assume they'd be evenly distributed. You cant even compare the troop qualities - what qualifies as regular in PC may not be the same in CM - not only that, but both games may model experience on different factors, some of which CM or PC may not even share!

It gets even further complicated by the way CM depicts reality, though many things in game are basically 1:1 to real life, others are abstractions. For example though the trench and foxholes appear one way, BFC has stated they're meant to depict a certain type of trench and foxhole. Anyone whose seen photos of real life foxholes and trenches know that they could run the gamut from scrapes in the ground from helmets, to massive complexes such as WW1 or Dien Bien Phu. And everything in between for that matter. Also the timing is off - the barrage in PC you say you assume lasts 2 hours. Why would it always last two hours? I understand thats the way that game works, however in real life there's obviously a million varieties of ways artillery is used. This abstraction cannot be translated to CM and if you decide to model it as area fire, or whatever arbitrary rules you come up with, you're fixing the results of your tests before you run them.

[lurrp]

I haven't actually ever been shelled, by I can imagine it's pretty devastating. CM seems pretty accurate, especially among bunched troops. Conversely, I've had barrages do nonexistent to minimal damage. It seems like a lot of factors are judged and the results can vary, which seems pretty realistic. Also, I'm not sure comparing one game to another will really tell you much; PC could be completely off.

[Pak40]

not true. most of the variables are compareable:

1) company size on both platforms.

2) experience level about the same.

3) same artillery pieces used (number of tubes and type)

4) company is entrenchend. in PC theirs a additional entrechment level called bunker so i guess entrenched is practicably the same as in CM2. by the way it seems like CM2 also uses abstracted overhead protection in trenches. for example multiple hits inside the trench with units in hide resulted in no casualties.

we are talking about around 40% casualties in 10-15 minutes of artillery shelling (only 4 tubes of 10,5cm) against a entrenched postion in the CMBN tests. do you really think that is realistic?

Siffo, you're experiment is really unscientific. The variables between the two games are so vast that there's no validity in your conclusions. The variables listed above are only a subset of what is really driving the casualty ratio between the two games.

In PC, the hexes are 1km in size but you put the company across a 400 meters in CMBN. You also didn't specify how big of an artillery barrage was specified in CMBN. If you put the barrage size at 400m then you're not comparing apples to apples. Put the barrage radius at 500m (1000 diameter), then you've got a fairer comparison.

Also, you assume that the PC barrage lasts 2 hours! Even if a two hour barrage consisted of 150 shells, that's just over 1 shell per minute falling across a 1km hex - hardly a barrage to fear or cause suppression.

Another issue that doesn't seem right is the 40% PC entrenchment value. If I understand correctly, the company should receive 40% more casualties if they are unentrenched? So, by your casualty tests they might receive one or two more casualties??? Doesn't that sound rather light for a company taking a pounding by 105mm in the open? Hardly worth the barrage.

[Battlefront.com]

Just to chime in support of what others said... the two games can not be compared against each other. That's a non-starter. Therefore, nothing else that follows has much meaning.

To judge CM's combat modeling there is only one thing to compare against... real AARs from real world battles that are of a similar nature. Usually a great deal of guess work is needed, and conclusions have to be carefully weighed against the unknowns, differences, accuracy of the reports, etc. But when carefully done it can be useful.

Steve

[dieseltaylor]

Interesting figures on the CMBN effective use of trenches. Its interesting to see, in terms of casualties how ineffective shelling can be from reports from that period.

WO 291/946 Effects of bombardment – present state of knowledge.

This summary was published in 1946.

Against men in slit trenches, 25-pdr groundburst must hit the trench or parapet to be effective. If firing 1000 25-pdr shells into a 300 ´ 300 yard box with 100 men in it in slit trenches, the expected number of casualties would be nine.

........

As you are using 105mm this might give a conversion factor:

WO 291/262 Study of casualties caused by bombardment.

"25 pdr equivalents" for two weapons, in nominal lbs:

Weapon Warhead weight HE weight 25-pdr equivalent

5-in rocket 29lb 7.0lb 50

105mm shell 33lb 4.9lb 40

......

Conveniently we can say that the figures shown mean 25 105mm is equivalent devastation. However I suspect they mean by area effect and pay no attention to the length of time and the individual chances of being hit. On the face of it 1000 small explosions is more worrying than 25 large ones as one might think some of the 25 shells may cover the same area.

Another piece of wartime research goes into the effect various sorts of terrain have for nullifying bombardment effectiveness. In an operational game the terrain effects I am sure averaged out whereas in CMBN I am assuming terrain does have different effects. Perhaps that might be a fruitful area to test which types reap more bangs for the buck.

Overall though the degree to which HIDE makes such a big difference is puzzling.

[Broadsword56]

I think if someone wants to compare CMx2 to documented reality, that can be useful (even though CM is a game) because then we can see how far from reality the game results are, and then we can make allowances for that.

But comparing CM to another PC game?? Of a different scale?? Ludicrous.

[akd]

Interesting figures on the CMBN effective use of trenches. Its interesting to see, in terms of casualties how ineffective shelling can be from reports from that period.

Report assumes that men are taking cover in the trenches, otherwise a direct hit would not be necessary to have a chance of causing a casualty. Even HIDING men in CM occasionally put their heads up, so it is difficult to compare. This again highlights a shortcoming in the TacAI.

As you are using 105mm this might give a conversion factor:

Conveniently we can say that the figures shown mean 25 105mm is equivalent devastation. However I suspect they mean by area effect and pay no attention to the length of time and the individual chances of being hit. On the face of it 1000 small explosions is more worrying than 25 large ones as one might think some of the 25 shells may cover the same area.

Not sure how you got that. I believe that conversion shows 600 105mm to be equivalent to 1000 25 lbr. However the conversion doesn't really work for the previous report, as the probability of casualties = the probability of a direct hit.

[siffo998]

Overall though the degree to which HIDE makes such a big difference is puzzling.

thx. at least one who gets the gripe.

PC comparison aside. Arent the CM2 casualty numbers, without any comparison, apalling enough to be talked about ?

A ! Entrenched ! Company receives around 40% Casualties in 10-15 minutes of a shelling from 4x 105mm ? Really ?

If Artillery of that size and number would have been that effective the war would have been over in July maybe August 1944 latest... given the overwhelming numbers of artillery used by the allies against german positions.

And then HIDE command makes all the difference ? Maybe the TacAI should keep their heads down all along during an Artillery Strike. After all we are talking about the big shells which can be heard while coming down (in comparison to mortar shells).

[womble]

thx. at least one who gets the gripe.

Oh, we all "get" what you're saying. What you're not hearing is: "So what? You can make your troops hide, so where's the problem?"

Maybe the TacAI should keep their heads down all along during an Artillery Strike.

Or maybe we could let players use the controls available to them. Do you often just keep hitting the red button over and over again until you've been overrun/run out of time?

[dieseltaylor]

akd - the conversion factor of 40 to one was included in one of the quotes

WO 291/262 Study of casualties caused by bombardment.

"25 pdr equivalents" for two weapons, in nominal lbs:

Weapon Warhead weight HE weight 25-pdr equivalent

5-in rocket 29lb 7.0lb 50

105mm shell 33lb 4.9lb 40

I must admit I was surprised at that and I prefer your 1000 equals 600. Where do you get that figure from ?

One answer may be that the bombardment is air-burst in which going to the botttom of the trench does make a difference from standing in a trench !! The depth of the game is such that we have to experiment to find out these effects rather like in WW2 they had to do all this research and refine their tactics in line with what was discovered.

[hoolaman]

The unit of comparison is "nominal pounds" 25:40:50

[womble]

now second test using CMBN:

I`ve set up a scenario using a open quick battle map (around 1 km wide which is in translation the same size of one hexagon in PC).

i`ve used one american infantry company...entrenched 400m around the objective area in the center of the map.

If that's the middle 400m, the troops are too densely clumped to cover a frontage of 1km. Their small arms effective ranges wouldn't overlap with a similarly placed company "one hex over", and even on a clear map there would likely be huge dead zones that an enemy could advance through without being effectively resisted.

Having fired up the editor to take a look at this, the frontage covered is an even bigger problem with the test setup than it seemed at first blush. With 3 platoons covering in a "2 up one back" position, the "back" platoon grouped on a VL, the "up" platoons aren't even in the maximum spread of a CM fire mission (200m radius), and pretty much take casualties only from "far misses" that are directly in line with the end of the trench they're in. In total, I'm seeing around a quarter of the casualties you're presenting without Hide. Perhaps because the poor dogfaces in your test are all jammed together. Are you splitting squads and putting them all in separate, dispersed trenches? Or are you leaving them intact so that entire squads go to pieces at once and flee their positions, and in-trench hits kill half a dozen at a time?

It's also worth pointing out that Low Morale, -1 Leadership troops are pretty bleedin' worthless even if they haven't been shaken up by an entire unit of fire landing on their position. How that actually compares with "PC" ratings is yet another flaw in your "comparison".

There are so many holes, even taking your CM test in isolation, that you're not adding very much to the "argument" (such as it is) since fortifications got a bit of a retune a couple of patches ago.

[Fizou]

Play both game and love them, especially combined, but this comparison is not worth anything. Totally agree with wombles last post.

If one spread out a coy in treanches over a 1km x 1km map and the opposing player, with FOW use one 105 (4 guns) barrage on this map to try and do as much damage as possible, one would come closer to the casualtie count in PzC. Its a totaly different thing if you have good knowledge of where the enemy is and can zero in the barrage.

[womble]

Play both game and love them, especially combined, but this comparison is not worth anything. Totally agree with wombles last post.

If one spread out a coy in treanches over a 1km x 1km map and the opposing player, with FOW use one 105 (4 guns) barrage on this map to try and do as much damage as possible, one would come closer to the casualtie count in PzC. Its a totaly different thing if you have good knowledge of where the enemy is and can zero in the barrage.

Yes, if the "PC" bombardment is effectively "blind firing", blanketing the hex, it's such a diffuse shoot that it'll be mostly ineffective, as the 400m diameter shoot at (effectively) 1 platoon turns out to be.

[siffo998]

Yes, if the "PC" bombardment is effectively "blind firing", blanketing the hex, it's such a diffuse shoot that it'll be mostly ineffective, as the 400m diameter shoot at (effectively) 1 platoon turns out to be.

ok to settle with wombles concerns i`ve rerun the test and split each squad into its elements and placed each element of the whole company in a seperate trench module. (totaling around 40 trench modules). i`ve even placed edge trench modules so that nobody can say a squad was placed at the edge of a trench and therefore the trench is rendered useless. then i`ve changed all experience levels to regular and morale leadership etc. to 0.

now i`ve rerrun first the test setup as seen above. company spread out around 400m and shelled with 140x 10,5cm shells.

here are the casualties for both test runs:

first: 100 OK, 34 KIA, 30 MIA, 39,4% casualties

second: 114 OK, 27 KIA, 23 MIA, 30,48% casualties

now i`ve ran a third test as above but again with all men in hide:

result: 158 OK, 6 KIA, 0 WIA, 3,8 % casualties

---------------------------

now i`ve reran the test with the entrenched company spread out in a 700mX1000m area. you can only give a target area command for a 400m radius so to keep the test as short as possible i`ve used target area command for four batteries of 4x 10,5cm guns and gave them a Heavy fire/Medium Duration command (each battery firing 40 shells totaling around 160 shells in the target area.) Each battery shot at a different 400m radius location in the target area. you can simply assume that one battery of 4x 10,5cm walked the whole target area with 160 shells over a longer time span.

here are the results without hide command:

136 OK, 12 KIA, 16 WIA, still 17,28% casualties.

my 10 cents:

do whatever you want with those numbers but for me the casualty rate for "non hiding" units is still much to high. in an artillery barrage the soldiers should be expected to realistically keep their head down. From my test i can assume that the problem is with the "TacAI". Sticking out your head and watching the wildlife while artillery is raining down is a bad idea. given the fact that the player cannot interfere when the arty is coming down while in a one minute replay turn, something should be done to increase the life preservation behaviour of the pixeltruppen.

[womble]

[snipped irrelevant overcrowded test]

---------------------------

That sounds a reasonable shortcut at first look.

That's still well over double the amount (4x in the case of KIA) I see on a 150 shell mission at the middle platoon. I'll have a go at reproducing it later. I still think you're unconsciously doing something that makes your test flaky.

So is keeping your head down and getting overrun by tanks and infantry. You, the player, have the control over whether your troops keep their heads down or not.

First, how many bods do you lose in one minute? Or 30s in the case of a map-wide preplanned bombardment? Second: double-click your top command and hit hide for the first minute if you're bothered. It's probably a good idea anyway for most of your units to minimise accidental discovery.

[c3k]

Okay, I don't have PC. If each hex is km, then what are you using for a firing order for the CM artillery? I would HOPE that you've set up an area target which has a 500m radius. I mean, if you're going to bombard a 1 km wide hex in PC, you should bombard a 1 km wide circle in CM.

Next, you should give the CM men some trenches and bunkers. Order me to entrench, and give me two hours, and I'll have multiple layers of logs over my head, with a small firing slit facing the expected direction of attack.

I'd give the arty a "light" command. I mean, the goal is to stretch out the time the arty is falling to approach 2 hours.

Next, let the CM game go for 2 hours.

Now, how much suppression does your CM force have? It should be near zero. Casualties should be near zero as well. I mean, you DID split the squads up into teams, right? No one shell should take out more than a single team.

My .02.

Ken