Excess of accuracy?

[Whiterider]

It seems to me there´s an excess of accuracy in small arms for CM WW2: Too many casualties. CMBS is pretty much realistic in this aspect.

 

Is there any possiblity for a change?

[Kieme(ITA)]

Consider that CMBS simulates infantry body armor, and in general, all infantry defensive equipment is much better than any 1940s counterparts.

 

Most 1940s weapons use different calibers than modern weaponry, and long rifles were indeed quite precise in good hands.

[Apocal]

It seems to me there´s an excess of accuracy in small arms for CM WW2: Too many casualties. CMBS is pretty much realistic in this aspect.

 

Is there any possiblity for a change?

 

I think the accuracy is fine, but suppression is undermodelled and morale overmodelled. Dudes are too willing to stand and bang with each other for extended periods of time.

[JoMac]

It seems to me there´s an excess of accuracy in small arms for CM WW2: 

 

Is there any possiblity for a change?

 

And finally, someone who thinks the same as me...

 

Joe

Edited April 2, 2015 by JoMc67

[Wiggum15]

I think the accuracy is fine, but suppression is undermodelled and morale overmodelled. Dudes are too willing to stand and bang with each other for extended periods of time.

Exactly what i think !

Supression goes away too quick, i remember all those times i had fired 88mm HE into enemy occupied buildings but the supression was gone in 30sec or something and they started firing at my Infantry again.

- The effects of Suppression need to last longer

- Morale should decrease quicker and take longer to recover but...

- Panic should not happen that fast like currently

[JoMac]

I've been in the process of play-testing using 'Green' or 'Conscript' troops only to help ways to keep the Casualties down and Suppression up...Below are some examples of using 'Green' Troops:

 

- All Squads & PHQ's

Green with no bonuses would be 'Green Troops' IRL

Green with Motivation +1 would be 'Reg Troops' IRL

Green with Motivation +1 Leadership +1 would be 'Vet Troops' IRL

Green with Motivation +2 Leadership +1 would be 'Crack\Elite Troops' IRL 

 

Vet or better PHQ's will get an additional Leadership bonus. 

 

Even with all of the above I still find the Casualties high, but works well enough.                                                                                   I would use the above for Meetings & Attacker, but defending troops may be at a lower motivation ( unless the defender happens to be high quality troops like Para's ). 

[Bulletpoint]

I think accuracy at very close ranges is too low actually. Such as when my Thompson toting sergeant manages to squeeze off a whole salvo at 10 metres against an enemy team without hitting anything. Part of it seems to be that only one target point is chosen for each burst, and if that point is not on target, the whole stream of bullets is wasted.

[Whiterider]

I consider part of the issue is the visibility. In CMX2 you can be seen clearly from a long long distance (and be shot), even if you´re inside a forest.

[Childress]

Suppression goes away too quick

 

Great minds think alike. Suppression 'light'- and the resulting inflation in casualties- has (arguably) characterized all the CM2 titles. It may be a calculated decision on the part of BF in order to make the games more approachable and fun for non-grogs. The sterner system in CM1 (especially Barbarossa to Berlin)  aroused complaints from many buyers. But not everyone. In an older post I alleged that the hardcore guys play with a modified and much more punitive version at a hotel in Vermont. These events are held quarterly and entry requires a secret handshake 

 

You'll need a cattle prod to get those cowering GIs or landsers over the next hill..

Edited April 2, 2015 by Childress

[sburke]

Part of it is due to the soft factors assigned by folks. I generally think they are too high. Ignore for the moment the naming used and just consider it a numerical scale. Personally I think the scale is weighted too heavily toward the high end. Broadsword and I in our campaign tend to avoid those constantly fit, well equipped Rambo type troops.

It is something you can change and makes for a very interestingly different game.

[Childress]

Yes, you could play with the soft factors: experience, motivation, leadership. But we want our Crack units/formations- Easy Company, Gross Deutschland- to be designated as such in game. Immersion counts. Ideally you'd have the 'less forgiving morale' parameters kick in with the Iron and Elite options. And, regrettably, obsolete a bunch of scenarios and campaigns in the process. But so did the MG fix.

 

Mounting an effective assault in CM1 often proved a b*tch. But rewarding when it worked. 

[MikeyD]

WWII rifles are larger caliber than modern assault rifles, with greater range and greater penetration. In CM:Afghanistan the two meet up - old Mujahideen Enfields versus AK-74.  If you need long range aimed fire or if you're firing through building walls you'd want the old Enfields. In CMRT we've got the other extreme too, the PPSh smg with a murderous ROF over a thousand rounds per minute - like a gangster's Tommy gun but with twice the range.

[Macisle]

Yes, you could play with the soft factors: experience, motivation, leadership. But we want our Crack units/formations- Easy Company, Gross Deutschland- to be designated as such in game. Immersion counts. Ideally you'd have the 'less forgiving morale' parameters kick in with the Iron and Elite options. And, regrettably, obsolete a bunch of scenarios and campaigns in the process. But so did the MG fix.

 

Mounting an effective assault in CM1 often proved a b*tch. But rewarding when it worked. 

 

Actually, I usually avoid using high-end troops and/or gear. I give them to the AI, but usually go with "Typical" myself, or lower. I've always had this weird thing about wanting to play as "Joe Grunt."

 

Right now, I've got a battalion of Luftwaffe low-end troops with some AG support trying to take a town from British airborne.

 

Some of the split teams only have like--200 rounds!

Edited April 4, 2015 by Macisle

[Sequoia]

 It may be a calculated decision on the part of BF in order to make the games more approachable and fun for non-grogs. The sterner system in CM1 (especially Barbarossa to Berlin)  aroused complaints from many buyers.

 

 

 

I think that's spot on. In real life things would progress at a much slower pace probably boring many people.

[Macisle]

I think that's spot on. In real life things would progress at a much slower pace probably boring many people.

 

I would guess that's the reason. It's part of the "time compression" necessary to make the "game" side of the scale balance against the "sim" side.

 

Like others have said, the tools are already there to tweak things. You just have to accept that your "elite" unit reads as only veteran or regular in the UI. However, if BF moves the whole ruler in the direction of slower combat, the end result is likely to be general player-base dissatisfaction.

 

I think it's about right as things stand.

[Wiggum15]

However, if BF moves the whole ruler in the direction of slower combat, the end result is likely to be general player-base dissatisfaction.

 

I dont think so.

They always complain about how ninche they are and how "few" customers they have (compared to most other games) and i thin those "few" would like a slower and more realistic combat simulation or at least some tweaking.

[Vanir Ausf B]

I dont think so.

They always complain about how ninche they are and how "few" customers they have (compared to most other games) and i thin those "few" would like a slower and more realistic combat simulation or at least some tweaking.

 

Some would. Some would not. We've been down this road before.

Is Infantry Weaker In CMBB?

Infantry In CMBB

CMBB Infantry Too Brittle?

My disappointment with CMBB

The "debate" about CMBB's Infantry Modeling

Edited April 4, 2015 by Vanir Ausf B

[Wiggum15]

As i said, some tweaking would maybe be enough.

Just make Inf a bit less Rambo, increase the effects of supression and decrease accuracy a bit for small arms.

 

If you want to have a real good modelling of time and space in combat and want to scream at the monitor because your attacking Bn has again bogged down then there is a other game i cant mention here...

Edited April 4, 2015 by Wiggum15

[Vanir Ausf B]

I would support suppression from explosions lasting longer. Outside of that I see little need for change. If anything, there are some types of infantry weapons I would like to be more accurate.

[Wiggum15]

Actually small arms are not too accurate but the bunching up of infantry in CM means that accuracy needs to be toned down a bit the get realistic results.

[Vanir Ausf B]

I disagree. I think accuracy has already been toned way down compared to reality. If you've ever paid close attention to how many shots it typically takes to hit troops in the open you'll see that soldiers in CM are borderline incompetent at marksmanship.

 

If you want to point the finger at high casualty levels in Combat Mission you would be better off looking towards artillery and mortars, which are too precise by far and at least in the WW2 titles too flexible.

[Vanir Ausf B]

Oh, and another major factor that people are completely overlooking: spotting. Infantry in CM are, in general, much easier to spot than in reality. This is a deliberate design decision so that scenarios don't last 12 hours.

Edited April 4, 2015 by Vanir Ausf B

[Wiggum15]

Thats the point, the accuracy is to high if you consider how much easier it is in CM to spot Inf.

Take that and the "bunching up" and "conga lines" and you need to really town down small arms accuracy to get semi-realistic results.

[Vanir Ausf B]

Results are already semi-realistic, and to the extent that they differ from realistic isn't because of too accurate small arms fire. It has much more to do with time compression and players being far more willing to keep pushing their forces until there is nothing left than would most real world commanders. Frankly, I think making small arms less accurate is a terrible idea, particularly if you want infantry to be "less Rambo" since that would make infantry more Rambo. That was in large part the reason for buffing up machine guns.

[A Canadian Cat]

players being far more willing to keep pushing their forces until there is nothing left than would most real world commanders.

This is the single biggest factor. If you want more realistic games and causality rates then you need to slow down, spend more time taking care of all wounded, bringing up more support and most importantly stop fighting once your casually levels tick up.

Sounds like what you need is more house rules