Improvement suggestions

[MOS:96B2P]

7 hours ago, akd said:

IIRC trucks and other unarmored vehicles are treated differently than APCs / IFVs and have always forced a dismount on immobilization.

Well maybe this is intended behavior then.................  That would really suck if a supply truck became immobilized and you couldn't recover the supplies from it.  I don't use trucks very often and must have never tried to Acquire ammo from an immobilized one.  It probably was immobilized APCs and IFVs I was remembering.  In any case I sent the save file to Ian.  If there is a problem BFC can put it on the list.  If not they can ignore it.    

[Kaunitz]

Hello! Thanks for all the feedback by the veterans!  It's really good to see a forum that is alive! 

@ Truck-problem: 

Indeed the crew bailed out when the truck got stuck without me ordering them to do so. The game was still played on engine version 3. 

@ Advancing in the cover of tanks: 

Thanks for the information, MOS:96B2P! I didn't know that friendly fire can pass through friendly tanks! You're correct that advancing in the trails of a tank is not a very safe approach, but still I found that in some cases, it seemed to be a rather reasonable thing to do (nothing but enemy small arm weapons around, all of their fire coming from the front, not at odd angles; no alternatives in terms of cover). In fact I've even seen this "tactic" in actual footage of the war in Syria, although here the conditions seemed totally inappropriate (tank + infantry were entering a city...) so I guess that this kind of bunching up behind a tank was more of a psychological thing.   

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

Here is a brand new (Red Thunder) AAR of a quickbattle against the AI: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bcz9yMJfsnI&feature=youtu.be

Against a human opponent, I think this map should be rated as an assault-map rather than an attack-map. The attacker needs to cross a river which can be controlled by very good positions (village, woods) and once the attacker manages to cross, he still has to overcome a few ridges (my worst enemy!). 

 

 

[MOS:96B2P]

5 hours ago, Kaunitz said:

<Snip>  Here is a brand new (Red Thunder) AAR of a quickbattle against the AI: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bcz9yMJfsnI&feature=youtu.be   <Snip> 

Interesting AAR video.  Thanks for sharing.  I will finish watching it in between my PBEM turns.  Looks like it is a well done AAR.   

[Kaunitz]

Another thing I was wondering about is the effect of established or broken communication lines:

The manual explains very well how communication links can be established* and how they're displayed. The effects of command links, however, are not very well documented. So apparently, there are two effects:

Shared information about enemy contacts: How information-sharing works has been very well explained by MOS's guide. The advantage of having suspected contact markers for your troops is not entirely clear to me though. From my observations, units get some kind of bonus for spotting (and thereby confirming) a suspected contact marker, but I'm not sure.

The manual also states that command links affect morale, but no details are given. Here is a quote (p.64) - it's nicely written, but cryptic in terms of actual explanation:

Quote

Lastly, maintaining C2 is important for keeping unit cohesion intact. Units tend to get jumpy when they don’t know what the friendly units around them are up to, or where their superiors are, or what the enemy might be trying to do at that moment. Without C2, the imagination can run a bit wild, so to speak, and the unit may be imagining the worst scenario. Perhaps all its buddies withdrew and forgot to tell it to pull back? Maybe the HQ was wiped out and nobody higher up knows about those tanks coming down the road, and therefore no help is on the way? Well-disciplined units hold up better under these circumstances, of course, but every unit has its breaking point. If it has contact with its fellow forces and feels supported, things are less stressful.

 

I've fiddled around with command links during a deployment phase and I have not seen the morale-status of any unit change because of broken or established command links. On the other hand, this was at the start of the game and all troops were at their maximum morale level. So I suppose communication and control might matter more once things are actually getting hot? Does anyone have clear information on this topic? Also, I wonder: does it negatively affect a platoon if the communication to the platoon leader is intact, but the link to the coy or bat. is broken? I often delete battalion leaders when selecting my troops (because I tend to play smaller battles...).

 

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

This also makes me wonder about the effect of a unit's leadership-modifier and the effect of a unit's current morale-level. Questions, questions, questions. All these things are not stated clearly in the manual ("The better the modifier, the more effective the Leader is in keeping things on the straight and narrow." - aha  ). Does leader-quality affect how fast the unit gets pinned down under fire? Or how long it takes a pinned unit to drop a level of morale? Or how fast a unit on low morale decides to retreat? Or perhaps does it even affect the accuracy of a unit's fire? Or does it indeed affect the cohesion of the unit - i.e. how fast everyone is at their position in the action square that the unit is moving to? And what is the morale-modifier supposed to tell me? 

* The information that communication via WWII manpack-radios breaks down if the radio-operator is moving is missing though.  

Edited December 30, 2016 by Kaunitz

[MOS:96B2P]

1 hour ago, Kaunitz said:

<Snip>  The advantage of having suspected contact markers for your troops is not entirely clear to me though. From my observations, units get some kind of bonus for spotting (and thereby confirming) a suspected contact marker, but I'm not sure.  <Snip> 

Not sure I understand the question.  I think you are asking about Iron skill level when a friendly must spot other friendlies during playback phase (not orders phase).  This shows what your friendly unit knows about the world around him (to include friendly units) and IMO helps to understand the friendly unit's morale etc.  Below is a link to Iron play mode.  Or it occurs to me that maybe I miss-understood this question entirely .  

1 hour ago, Kaunitz said:

<Snip>  The manual also states that command links affect morale, but no details are given. Here is a quote (p.64) - it's nicely written, but cryptic in terms of actual explanation:  I've fiddled around with command links during a deployment phase and I have not seen the morale-status of any unit change because of broken or established command links. On the other hand, this was at the start of the game and all troops were at their maximum morale level. So I suppose communication and control might matter more once things are actually getting hot? Does anyone have clear information on this topic? Also, I wonder: does it negatively affect a platoon if the communication to the platoon leader is intact, but the link to the coy or bat. is broken? I often delete battalion leaders when selecting my troops (because I tend to play smaller battles...).  

I think you have to move past the Setup phase and into the battle when stress is introduced to the fire teams before you see changes in the morale etc.  The easiest way to notice a change is probably to look at a fire team that is out of C2 but is in an area where the bullets are flying.  They will almost always at least show nervous morale next to the motivation level in this situation.  In addition a broken C2 link will negatively effect vertical information sharing.  So if the link to the Company is broken but not the platoon the fire team only knows what the Platoon HQ knows.  The Company may have info that a Tiger tank is coming down the road but no way to get the info to the Platoon HQ and then to the fire team if the C2 link is broken.  If I don't have a Battalion HQ in the battle to serve as a bridge of info (horizontal info sharing) between two companies I sometimes have the company XOs act as liaisons to the other company HQ (if they have radios).  Place A Company XO with B Company HQ etc. 

   

1 hour ago, Kaunitz said:

<Snip> This also makes me wonder about the effect of a unit's leadership-modifier and the effect of a unit's current morale-level. Questions, questions, questions. Does leader-quality affect how fast the unit gets pinned down under fire? Or how long it takes a pinned unit to drop a level of morale? Or how fast a unit on low morale decides to retreat? Or perhaps does it even affect the accuracy of a unit's fire? And what is the morale-modifier supposed to tell me? 

* The information that communication via WWII manpack-radios breaks down if the radio-operator is moving is missing though.  

Current Leadership has an effect on accuracy of fire and vehicle bogging chances (according to the Engine manual).  The motivation modifier tells you what motivation level is permanently (unlike Leadership which can change as leaders are KIA and replaced) assigned to that unit .  Example: Poor -2 / Low -1 / Normal blank / High +1 / Extreme +2 / Fanatic +2.  (Yes, Extreme and Fanatic both show as + 2 not sure why).  The morale level (to the right) of the motivation is how the unit is currently reacting to it's situation.  A high motivation (+1) fire team may show nervous morale because it is out of C2 and has a tentative contact of an OpFor tank approaching.  The higher the units motivation level the quicker it will recover morale levels (generally speaking, lots of variables).  

Yes in all WWII game titles and CMSF C2 is lost by a backpack radio when the RTO is moving.  C2 is however maintained in CMBS in the same circumstance.         

Edited December 30, 2016 by MOS:96B2P

[arpella72]

I would like to see more variety of defensive works.Diferent kind of wires,bunkers,pillboxes,guns emplacements(with camouflage nets on for example) and deeper,and more realistic, trenches and foxholes but I have readed there are some technical problems with these last issues.They couldn't be overcome in any way?

[Kaunitz]

MOS:96BTP! Thanks for your comprehensive answer!

My first question was: What is the benefit of suspected contact markers (in terms of game-mechanics)? Do units get an increased chance for spotting something at places where they allready have a suspected contact marker? 

As for Iron difficulty, I was under the impression that the whole "you need to spot friendly troops too"-thing was merely for additional immersion, without any mechanical aspect to it? Do you think that a unit gains some kind of moral bonus if it is aware of friendly troops close by? Also, it's interesting that you suggest that units' morale is influenced by enemy (suspected/confirmed) contacts (within a certain range). I always believed it was just a matter of the volume of incoming fire and casualties suffered.

Regarding my second question, if I understand your answer correctly, then only the command link to it's immediate direct superior matters for a fighting unit in terms of morale? Command links to indirect superiors further above only matter in terms of information-sharing. 

Thanks for clearing up the numbers for me! So our hypothesis is that leader-quality affects the unit's accuracy of fire (so it's not that important for higher echelons/HQs...) and bogging chances. The motivational modifier is actually a permanent stat representing the unit's base morale/motivation - in contrast to the morale status that displays the current morale level of the unit. 

arpella72

I am a big fan of defensive structures as well and even though the current selection is not bad at all, I'd like to see some improvements or additions here. I'd love to see tank-parapets (I don't know how they're called properly... earth covering 3 of the 4 sides of the tank) and additional camouflage options. You could buy additional camouflage (as a fortification type) and fit it on vehicles or emplaced heavy weapons if they're positioned in the appropriate terrain (woods, scrubs). They would loose this camouflage if they moved. It would serve to make them harder to spot (and swirl up less dust when firing). My heart bleeds when I discover that a defender's AT-gun is easily spotted after only one round fired - this might also be related to the overall rather short engagement distances though. Also, what about anti-tank-ditches?

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

Now, I seem to be a very, very defensive/cautious player, so maybe it's just my personal problem, but still I wanted to ask: Do you guys have troubles with time-limits too? Apart from role-playing communications (which renders the time-limits of most scenarios totally unrealistic), I regularly run into troubles if there is a lot of rough terrain or urban terrain on the battlefield. I mean I ususally try to advance cautiously and carefully, scouting positions and routes of approachment before I move troops, checking all possible lines of fire. This, however, means that it might very well take me 1 hour or more to move through a single block of houses. I think that's actually pretty realistic. But the time-limits of many scenarios demand a much faster approach, forcing me to take risks and roll the dice all the time. When I run into a mission and I am supposed to advance my troops 2 kilometers through densely wooded terrain and capture a village at the end, and the time limit says: 1h 30min I usually drop out - no way! If I have lots of armour, I can at least deal with woods - just form up two parallell columns and drive through, MGs blasting non-stop right and left. But this tends to funnel my armour onto a single route of approach.

So I guess I have to hope for longer scenarios with a balance slightly more in favour for preserving one's troops over reaching an objective area. Or I could try to edit existing scenarios.  More and/or more accurate pre-game intel for scenarios would also help a lot.

With less terrain-crowded battlefields, it's much more relaxing to play. The level of claustrophobia and time-consuming scouting (and rather annoying boring clicking that comes with it) is reduced because errors do not immediatly lead to burning tanks. If distances are more generous, you're more likely to survive unforeseen initial contact. With the ambush ranges that seem to be dominating in CM-scenarios, you're knocked out immediatly though.

Edited January 2, 2017 by Kaunitz

[snarre]

AT guns get camo bonus if you are not moved them after game start. on long distance AT guns can be ewen trusfraiting hard to spot some time or ewen get idea where they are. camo bonus to AT guns work realy fine.  sadly we canot get that eye candy like camo nets ower them but thous are there under game engine hood ,running all time.

[A Canadian Cat]

 

3 hours ago, Kaunitz said:

My first question was: What is the benefit of suspected contact markers (in terms of game-mechanics)? Do units get an increased chance for spotting something at places where they allready have a suspected contact marker? 

Yes, they do. A tank that has been told, via information sharing, the location of an enemy tank will spot it faster once the tank has line of sight to the location of the enemy. As an example. 

Quote

Regarding my second question, if I understand your answer correctly, then only the command link to it's immediate direct superior matters for a fighting unit in terms of morale? Command links to indirect superiors further above only matter in terms of information-sharing. 

Mostly. Except one additional thing. If a unit is out of command from its immediate superior, a higher level command can act as direct leaders for the squad. For example if a squad from a platoon is to far from it Lt they will be out of command and you will see the red circle appear and there will be no command communication icons. But if you then move the platoon's company co up to close to the squad the command communication icons will appear for the squad indicating that they are in voice and visual command. This time directly by the company co. The circle will remain red since the platoon HQ is too far away but the squad will have command icons.

My understanding is that only voice and close visual command work for this, not distant visual.

[MOS:96B2P]

5 hours ago, Kaunitz said:

<Snip> The motivational modifier is actually a permanent stat representing the unit's base morale/motivation - in contrast to the morale status that displays the current morale level of the unit. 

<Snip> Do you guys have troubles with time-limits too? <Snip> 

As far as the follow up questions: What @IanL said.  

Let me try again on motivation/morale.  The motivational modifier is assigned to the unit in contrast to the leadership modifier which is assigned to the leader. The leadership modifier will change with the leader and the morale will change with the circumstances (casualties etc.).  A unit that begins with higher motivation will endure the circumstances of a mission better than one that starts with a lower motivation level.  I will also add a note of caution.  It would probably be reasonable to assume the higher the motivation the better.  But there is also a downside.  The higher the motivation level the more likely the troops will stick to your orders and disregard common sense.  A typical example (complaint) is the tank commander who is ordered to unbutton (Open Up).  The tank commander starts to take small arms fire.  A normal motivated tank commander is more likely to button up and save himself.  A high motivated TC is more likely to stick with your Open Up order and get shot.  One of the cool features about the game, everything has advantages and disadvantages.

Scenario time limits are often debated on the forum.  Generally speaking, I don't have a problem with them.  As in RL when an order is received it generally (always?) has a time that accompanies it since your unit's mission is usually part of a bigger mission that must be coordinated. Example: Alfa Company secure and hold Hill 273 by 1400hrs in order to protect the left flank of Bravo Company which will attack the crossroads at 1430hrs etc.  Having said that I often come away with a minor victory instead of a total victory because I won't push my troops hard enough for the total victory.  I'm okay with that and I think the vast majority of scenario designers give reasonable times on their missions.             

[Kaunitz]

@snarre: Oh wow, thanks! This is something I wasn't aware of! Now that you said it, I've looked it up in the manual (p. 54): "Anti-tank guns that are deployed in the Setup Phase and do not move or rotate are harder for the enemy to spot!" Though I wonder if aiming the gun counts as "rotating". 

@IanL: Thanks for clearing that up! 

@MOS:96B2P: Thanks to you as well for the information on motivation. 

Concerning time-limits, it's good to know that I'm not the only one who misses out on points because I don't push forward fast enough. I think I also have to do some self-criticism here because the best means for gaining ground fast seems to be proper planning. If your assault gun is on the wrong flank of the battlefield when you need it, you loose time. If your platton leader is calling in the battalion's arty instead of your FO team, you loose time. If your spotter can't see the spotting rounds, you loose time. etc. etc. So it's really a mixture of very tough time-limits (at times unrealistic limits, unless you play "blindly" or already know where the enemy is) and my incompetence.

[A Canadian Cat]

5 hours ago, Kaunitz said:

Concerning time-limits, it's good to know that I'm not the only one who misses out on points because I don't push forward fast enough. I think I also have to do some self-criticism here because the best means for gaining ground fast seems to be proper planning. If your assault gun is on the wrong flank of the battlefield when you need it, you loose time. If your platton leader is calling in the battalion's arty instead of your FO team, you loose time. If your spotter can't see the spotting rounds, you loose time. etc. etc. So it's really a mixture of very tough time-limits (at times unrealistic limits, unless you play "blindly" or already know where the enemy is) and my incompetence.

Good points about planning. I know time limits have been debated lots. I will only add that as a defender the time limit is your greatest resource. In this game the defender rarely can actually defeat the attacker. Their path to victory is to delay them and for that you need the time limit otherwise the attacker will always prevale. Just another angle to consider.

[JoMac]

On 1/2/2017 at 7:39 AM, snarre said:

AT guns get camo bonus if you are not moved them after game start. on long distance AT guns can be ewen trusfraiting hard to spot some time or ewen get idea where they are. camo bonus to AT guns work realy fine.  sadly we canot get that eye candy like camo nets ower them but thous are there under game engine hood ,running all time.

Actually, any Unit gets a 'Camo Bonus', if you will, if not moved after Games Start.

Joe

[weapon2010]

5 hours ago, IanL said:

Their path to victory is to delay them and for that you need the time limit otherwise the attacker will always prevale.

I've won several defenses where the clock wasn't the primary factor, they are difficult to pull off, but very rewarding!and fun.

[snarre]

JoMc67  
i dont know other units or i dont say anything about thous because canot confirm that but AT guns get camo bonus.

[Kaunitz]

20 hours ago, IanL said:

Good points about planning. I know time limits have been debated lots. I will only add that as a defender the time limit is your greatest resource. In this game the defender rarely can actually defeat the attacker. Their path to victory is to delay them and for that you need the time limit otherwise the attacker will always prevale. Just another angle to consider.

You're indeed making a very interesting point. Theoretically, you can also win if you make the attacker suffer too many casualties while he takes the objective as most scenarios also award points for exceeding enemy casualty thresholds. But I think it's true adn also quite realistic that the time limit is more important in most cases. I always make myself believe that it represents a time in which the force under attack informs it's superior about the attack and waits either for the order to fall back or to hold out until reinforcements arrive.

I'm still a newbie when it comes to playing multiplayer CM-games (this is going to change very soon! ) . What I've been doing quite a few times, however, is setting up hotseat-games in which I played both sides - attacker and defender (does this make me a nerd amongst the nerds? :D). And this helped me learn a lot - especially on the defender's side since the AI is not that good on the attack. One of things I learned is that if you force the enemy to "deploy" (i.e. get all his units in position to take a certain terrain feature) early on, you can win a lot of time. Multiple weak lines of resistance, defence in depth,  seems to do a better job than a single strong line of resistance (but of course lots of other factors come in here...). 

However, on quite a lot of maps, I run into the problem that the terrain does not allow the defender a lot of movement, which makes defence in depth a bit dangerous (in terms of casualties at least). Withdrawing one of your lines of resistance is often not possible because there are enemy firing-lines all over it's path of retreat. Or perhaps I'm just withdrawing too late and/or not adequately covering the retreat with support/suppressive fire. This reminds me that I wanted to test whether trenches could prove usefull here: I'd not set them up at the front line, but rather in a way so that the trenches would cover my troops' movements between positions. But I fear that the point-cost of all those trenches might just be too high and the attacker might also use them to his advantage. 

 

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

If there was but one eyecandy-suggestion I could make, it would be this: 

When zooming in (using the "binoculars"), the game should increase the graphic-detail-level of the things I'm looking at. Right now, the graphics do not adjust, so if you're looking at things that are far away, the models and the terrain looks very bleak and terrain-shadows flicker a lot. Granted, this is a purely cosmetical suggestion. But it would make video-AARs more pretty to look at. 

Edited January 4, 2017 by Kaunitz

[mjkerner]

Kaunitz, I have found through a lot of H-2-H battles (in many of The Few Good Men campaigns) that when you think it's time to withdraw, it's already too late, lol! Seriously, withdrawal is tricky and you should probably start it well before you think you should. As in the real thing, withdrawal in the face of the enemy is dangerous.  Btw, smoke is your friend.  I always check what teams have smoke grenades (check the Pop Smoke button in the UI Admin panel) and if you have mortars or arty with smoke, use them to cover the retreat. Trenchs and foxholes placed in the proposed line if retreat do help, and of course use the terrain as best you can.

I think the game  looks great when zooming in, so I wonder if you are using the lower in-game quality settings, or maybe your graphics card is older or something?

Cheers, mate!

[A Canadian Cat]

6 hours ago, Kaunitz said:

...I always make myself believe that it represents a time in which the force under attack informs it's superior about the attack and waits either for the order to fall back or to hold out until reinforcements arrive.

That is a good way to think of it.

 

6 hours ago, Kaunitz said:

I'm still a newbie when it comes to playing multiplayer CM-games (this is going to change very soon! ) . What I've been doing quite a few times, however, is setting up hotseat-games in which I played both sides - attacker and defender (does this make me a nerd amongst the nerds?

LOL no it makes you smart

 

6 hours ago, Kaunitz said:

:D). And this helped me learn a lot - especially on the defender's side since the AI is not that good on the attack. One of things I learned is that if you force the enemy to "deploy" (i.e. get all his units in position to take a certain terrain feature) early on, you can win a lot of time. Multiple weak lines of resistance, defence in depth,  seems to do a better job than a single strong line of resistance (but of course lots of other factors come in here...). 

Agreed. Those are also times when you can drop some artillery on them too.

 

6 hours ago, Kaunitz said:

However, on quite a lot of maps, I run into the problem that the terrain does not allow the defender a lot of movement, which makes defence in depth a bit dangerous (in terms of casualties at least). Withdrawing one of your lines of resistance is often not possible because there are enemy firing-lines all over it's path of retreat. Or perhaps I'm just withdrawing too late and/or not adequately covering the retreat with support/suppressive fire....

Yes, withdrawing is tricky - I agree with @mjkerner's thoughts above.

[Bulletpoint]

On 12/27/2016 at 0:51 AM, Kaunitz said:

Here is my first attempt: the MG 42 sound. I got the base sound from a reenactor's video on youtube and edited it with audacity. I tried to come up with an okay mixture of "pop" and "noise". Judging from videos, the MG 42 seems to be rather "noisy" though. Sorry for the clipping, but if you want make firing sounds drown out other sounds (engines, voices, etc.) and if you want to make them audible over the whole battlefield, you need to amplify them over the top - otherwise the engine fades them out by far too quickly. 

 

 

Kaunitz_MG42.rar

Sounds nice and bassy, almost like the .50 cal, but maybe it's firing too slowly? I read somewhere that most MG42s you see firing on youtube today are chambered for a different round, and that their firing speed has been reduced. I also read that the real guns fired so fast that it sounded more like tearing fabric.

Edited January 11, 2017 by Bulletpoint

[Bulletpoint]

On 12/30/2016 at 5:50 PM, MOS:96B2P said:

A high motivation (+1) fire team may show nervous morale because it is out of C2 and has a tentative contact of an OpFor tank approaching.

Are you sure about this? I thought morale states were only reduced by suppression and casualties, not being out of C2 (but certainly being in C2 helps recover morale lost). And I've never noticed enemy contact icons affecting morale at all.

[A Canadian Cat]

7 hours ago, Bulletpoint said:

Are you sure about this? I thought morale states were only reduced by suppression and casualties, not being out of C2 (but certainly being in C2 helps recover morale lost). And I've never noticed enemy contact icons affecting morale at all.

Not really sure about contacts but being out of C2 means that if band things happen it will effect the unit more. C2 is not just about recovery.

[Bulletpoint]

47 minutes ago, IanL said:

Not really sure about contacts but being out of C2 means that if band things happen it will effect the unit more. C2 is not just about recovery.

Good point, but I just meant that being out of C2 does not in itself make troops jittery, as far as I know.

[A Canadian Cat]

24 minutes ago, Bulletpoint said:

Good point, but I just meant that being out of C2 does not in itself make troops jittery, as far as I know.

Which is my belief as well. @MOS:96B2P has done a lot of testing around C2 so if there is anyone who could show us the light he would be the guy.

[Erwin]

The MG42 firing should be faster for that tearing sound.  I use a mod that does that.  (No idea where it's from.)

[AstroCat]

Here's what I am using for the MG42. 
http://www.mediafire.com/file/es7iu0u9k0y2qbz/mg42_cmx2_sfx.rar