Omaha Beach West

[Glubokii Boy]

One neat feature of the area-target option for on-map mortars is that you can trigger the bombardment to start when an enemy units enters a specific area...or when an enemy units gets 'close' to a specific area...depending on how you place the terrain objective triggering the bombardment...

A small problem might be...when to stop the bombardment. There is no option for a 'timed bombardment' set at for example 3 minutes. The AI mortar will continue to fire until they run out of ammunition or recieve a new AI-order. When should they recieve this AI-order to stop firing ? You can not use the ingame timer to set a specific time simply because you do not know when this particular bombardment will start...

There are obviously some work arounds to deal with this but i think that most of them will require the use of additional AI-Groups and terrainobjectives...wich is limited in numbers...

For example you could have another AI-Group start a movement (that will take 3 minutes to complete (in a hidden location preferably to avoid player intervention) towards a specific terrain objective at the same time as the mortar bombardment starts. The terrainobjective of the 'moving' AI-Group will then trigger a new order to the mortar AI-group...to stop firring.

Not a perfect solution by any means but...doable...if you have the AI-Groups and terrain objectives avaliable...

 

 

[Bulletpoint]

13 minutes ago, RepsolCBR said:

One neat feature of the area-target option for on-map mortars is that you can trigger the bombardment to start when an enemy units enters a specific area...or when an enemy units gets 'close' to a specific area...depending on how you place the terrain objective triggering the bombardment...

A small problem might be...when to stop the bombardment. There is no option for a 'timed bombardment' set at for example 3 minutes. The AI mortar will continue to fire until they run out of ammunition or recieve a new AI-order. When should they recieve this AI-order to stop firing ? You can not use the ingame timer to set a specific time simply because you do not know when this particular bombardment will start...

There are obviously some work arounds to deal with this but i think that most of them will require the use of additional AI-Groups and terrainobjectives...wich is limited in numbers...

For example you could have another AI-Group start a movement (that will take 3 minutes to complete (in a hidden location preferably to avoid player intervention) towards a specific terrain objective at the same time as the mortar bombardment starts. The terrainobjective of the 'moving' AI-Group will then trigger a new order to the mortar AI-group...to stop firring.

Not a perfect solution by any means but...doable...if you have the AI-Groups and terrain objectives avaliable...

 

 

A simpler solution might be to just limit the amount of ammo available to the mortars.

[Glubokii Boy]

8 minutes ago, Bulletpoint said:

A simpler solution might be to just limit the amount of ammo available to the mortars.

That is obviously a good solution...If you are happy with the fact that the mortar team will expend all their ammo on one target.

In many situations this will offcourse be perfectly fine ...

 

[Erwin]

Am not familiar with the editor, but to sim/fake the ability of offboard HE to change targets could one have a large number of offboard guns but with limited ammo for each.  Then set several guns to arrive every few minutes all the way thru the mission?  Maybe sim a rolling barrage in this way??

[Sgt.Squarehead]

Tricky to do with off-map artillery because you can't determine what targets the FOs will assign them (AFAIK???).

You could however set up a mortar pit on-map with an exit zone nearby.....Spawn new mortars with fresh 'Target' orders and a suitable ammo load as needed and dump the old ones into hyperspace with a short move order onto the exit zone.....If you 'snow-ball' the scripts for the AI Group they are assigned to they can all go on one AI slot.  So long as the mortar pit is hidden at the back of the map, the player need never know about your trickery. 

This could mess with your parameters very slightly, so it would be a good idea to take account of this in advance when assigning VPs.

Edited July 19, 2017 by Sgt.Squarehead

[JonS]

Dont use exit zones unless you have a good understanding of how they screw up unit objectives.

Edited July 20, 2017 by JonS

[carcer]

Thanks for all the feedback. The area target for mortars sounds interesting and a go to if I can't get the mortars into action enough. So far the solution of: having the pre-support bombardment hit with the US first wave converged into a starting force works pretty well. With the support AI set to suppress it seems like the German artillery doesnt expend all their ammo and eventually switches back over to spotters setting up targets (not sure though). I added 6 trp's as well just incase (AI isnt quick enough without pre-bombardment).

I also screwed up in the balance and over looked that the amount of Sherman's in front of dog red were throwing things off. Even though trying not to be too rigid with historical at this point; history might support the decrease. Originally I had A/743rd with 15-18 shermans (2 m4a1's and 1 m4 [represents m4 dozer] loaded into each LCTa mk5 boat), but looking at various sources these LCTa boats had a lot of trouble and never dropped off the full company. One source only gives a total of 6 shermans making it in, works well with game balance, so 6 shermans it is.

I've added more concrete german bunkers too . This is to represent the double embrasure improved MG positions carved into the side of the hills. Might even have to turn some of the bunkers into actual MG ones instead of just having a crew or set AI ambush groups for decent engagement ranges. Mission balancing sucks lol. Here is an unmarked and unfinished aerial photograph overlay to show what I'm talking about. The double embrasures are the red squares off of the trench lines. https://photos.app.goo.gl/PpPsR7NCr3gKU2Lm1.

How the mission is going so far (spoilers): Really intense for the first 10 minutes with the tanks per-occupied on AT guns while the infantry tries to make it to the shingle under artillery and mg fire. A/116th broken as per real life but I've managed to get a decent amount of f/116th to the shingle. Situation at 10 minutes seems to be that the Sherman's gain upper hand but not in a good position (middle of map) to provide adequate support so player will have to start figuring out how to re-position them. Dog red is where I want it with infantry at the shingle fighting but not able to do much else. Dog white seems to be working well, WN still holding up with gap teams making it to the shingle to start blowing gaps. Still need to add gap assault teams as reinforcements to dog red and dog green as well as the rangers at the charlie to conclude the 1st wave. Mission parameters are looking like the time covered will be from 0630 to around 1300 condensed in a weird way to make it a 2 hour'ish mission.

Help with elevation: I've combined elevation data from the sources given in this forum with the google earth elevation method. I just used the real values, i.e. if it says 45 meters on the line I went with 45 meters, but noticed that CM direct elevation doesn't go below 5 meters. Does that mean I need to treat the game's 5 meters as 0 and add 5 to all my values? In this way most of the beach would be 0 elevation (5m) but then if I have an elevation line for say 10m I would actually want to make it 15m in the game?

[Sgt.Squarehead]

2 hours ago, JonS said:

Dont use exit zones unless you have a good understanding of how they screw up unit objectives.

It's only in issue if they are subject to an OpFor Destroy Unit Objective IIRC.

Edited July 21, 2017 by Sgt.Squarehead

[JonS]

If any part of that force is subject to a destroy objective, yes.

But then, in my humble, all parts of both forces should always be subject to a destroy objective. Unless there's a really really good and logical narrative reason why not. Really really really good. And logical.

Edited July 21, 2017 by JonS

[Xorg_Xalargsky]

5 hours ago, carcer said:

Help with elevation: I've combined elevation data from the sources given in this forum with the google earth elevation method. I just used the real values, i.e. if it says 45 meters on the line I went with 45 meters, but noticed that CM direct elevation doesn't go below 5 meters. Does that mean I need to treat the game's 5 meters as 0 and add 5 to all my values? In this way most of the beach would be 0 elevation (5m) but then if I have an elevation line for say 10m I would actually want to make it 15m in the game?

Yep, the game needs at least 5m for Water tiles.

[Sgt.Squarehead]

9 hours ago, JonS said:

If any part of that force is subject to a destroy objective, yes.

But if all the mortars are assigned to a single snow-balling AI group that's not subject to a destroy objective, how is this a problem? 

Edited July 21, 2017 by Sgt.Squarehead

[JonS]

If there is an exit obj, it applies to every unit that has a destroy obj, not just the mors. That's fine if no units have a destroy obj (although I dont think should ever be the case), or if you expect units with a destroy obj to actually attempt to exit.

In all other cases,  it'll most likely mess with the way you're expecting scoring to work.

Tldr; exit zones are tired to the entire force, not to specific units.

[Sgt.Squarehead]

Gotcha TC.....TBH I've been using them quite a bit in CM:A, so I think I've got my head around them. 

I think for @carcer the ability to target specific locations throughout the battle might outweigh the disadvantages, especially in a scenario like this where capturing the ground (getting off the goddam beach) is likely to make up the bulk of the Allied VPs.

Just my 2c. 

PS - I Take it Jon, based on your comments on the subject these past twelve months, that you've seen the odd exit zone cock-up in your time! 

Edited July 22, 2017 by Sgt.Squarehead

[carcer]

The exit zones might actually be an issue for me later on. I was under the impression you could do it for specific units, but if it's for an entire force eek. My only experience and knowledge of the exit zones plus where I got the idea from was one of the allied market garden missions where you exit 1 company of airborne troops while the rest hold onto objectives. For now the simple AI support plan works well for the beta test but once I go back for refinement it'll be fun to play around with the mortar idea. The exit zone issue is that my intention will be to have exit zones for ranger units so that the player will have to decide on picking up exit zone points, or using available rangers to help hold objectives instead. Historically the 5th (might be wrong too many units) ranger battalion (about company strength in man power) was suppose to land at dog green and then proceed to point du hoc if they didnt hear that the point was taken as a plan B. I guess radio comms didn't go out that the point was taken so they land on omaha at dog white and get tied up defending vierville instead. I think maybe a platoon didnt get the memo and pressed on to the point before German units were able to set up ambushes on the route.

[Sgt.Squarehead]

To clarify, just as Jon says, it's all about the destroy unit objectives.....If you assign those Rangers to a German destroy unit objective, they have to make it off the map or the Germans score for them.  Doesn't matter if they haven't taken a scratch, the Germans score for them as if they were dead if they don't exit the map. 

Any & all other units assigned to a German destroy unit objective would also have to exit the map in this instance, so you need to make a decision about how you are going to score this sooner rather than later if you plan on using exit zones for either side IMHO.

HTH

Edited July 22, 2017 by Sgt.Squarehead

[JonS]

3 hours ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

Gotcha TC.....TBH I've been using them quite a bit in CM:A, so I think I've got my head around them. 

Oh, I know that But EZs are a little tricksy and don't work the way you might expect, so I think it's worth pointing out the considerations involved

3 hours ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

I think for @carcer the ability to target specific locations throughout the battle might outweigh the disadvantages, especially in a scenario like this where capturing the ground (getting off the goddam beach) is likely to make up the bulk of the Allied VPs.

Possibly, yeah, That's a decision he has to make. FWIW, I think that it's always worth allocating points for enemy units killed.

 

3 hours ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

Just my 2c. 

PS - I Take it Jon, based on your comments on the subject these past twelve months, that you've seen the odd exit zone cock-up in your time! 

Oh ... one or two. Hopefully I caught them all before publication time

 

[Glubokii Boy]

I think that if the player are given points for destroying the german forces via a number of destroy unit objectives (that covers pretty much the entire german force)...
Having a number of seperate detsoy unit objectives...some are worth more then others...but NOT including the mortar teams that are part of the 'mortar area-target trick'And letting these mortars escape through an EXITZONE...

I doubt that that will have any MAJOR effect on the scoring...They are only a small part of the AI force i belive. Combined with terrain objective scoring, friendly casualty scoring and other things...Not likely a big problem imo...

The scenario editor still has some crippling limitations...and the AI artillery programing is one of them. Doing something like this has a limited 'cost' compared to the bonus of getting some well delivered AI mortar rounds in mid-game i have to say..

And hey...Maybe in this particular scenario the mortars don't even have to exit...having a german mortar possition with something like 4 mortar teams in it will not look all that strange at the end of the game...will it ?
Having 4 mortar teams snowballing in will allow for 4 AI mortar targets (using the limited ammo suggestion)...that might be enough
 

Edited July 22, 2017 by RepsolCBR

[JonS]

4 hours ago, RepsolCBR said:

... number of seperate detsoy unit objectives...some are worth more then others...but NOT including the mortar teams that are part of the 'mortar area-target trick'And letting these mortars escape through an EXITZONE...

I doubt that that will have any MAJOR effect on the scoring...They are only a small part of the AI force i belive. Combined with terrain objective scoring, friendly casualty scoring and other things...Not likely a big problem imo...

No.

See, this is EXACTLY the misunderstanding i was trying to draw attention to,  and the kind of misunderstanding that I think Sgt Squarehead's posts minimised.

What you are suggesting will cause "a big problem".

FWIW, I think that the effect you are trying to achieve can be better realised with lots of TRPs coupled with various off-map artillery modules arriving during the battle.  The AI will pull what it thinks is the best target when the module arrives,  and the TRP will ensure the fire arrives quickly and accurately.  With enough TRPs spread across the beach and foreshore, you will achieve the effect you're after without borking the scoring.

Edited July 22, 2017 by JonS

[Sgt.Squarehead]

It's simple to sum up really:  If you add an exit zone to a mission, you should only allocate enemy 'destroy unit' objective VPs to units that are intended to exit.  No other enemy 'destroy unit' objectives should be assigned when an exit zone is present. 

You do not have to allocate enemy 'destroy unit' objetives if you plan to use the exit zones tactically, but keep in mind that any that you do assign will be always deemed by the AI to be units that are required to exit.

8 hours ago, JonS said:

FWIW, I think that it's always worth allocating points for enemy units killed.

I'd always used 'destroy unit' objectives comparatively sparingly until quite recently, Combatintman showed me the light in my Mosul scenario, but then up until Mosul pretty much every scenario I'd designed had been for CM:A and had an exit zone (and I still got it wrong a couple of times in the early days)! 

Edited July 22, 2017 by Sgt.Squarehead

[Glubokii Boy]

10 hours ago, JonS said:

No.

See, this is EXACTLY the misunderstanding i was trying to draw attention to,  and the kind of misunderstanding that I think Sgt Squarehead's posts minimised.

What you are suggesting will cause "a big problem".

FWIW, I think that the effect you are trying to achieve can be better realised with lots of TRPs coupled with various off-map artillery modules arriving during the battle.  The AI will pull what it thinks is the best target when the module arrives,  and the TRP will ensure the fire arrives quickly and accurately.  With enough TRPs spread across the beach and foreshore, you will achieve the effect you're after without borking the scoring.

OK...thanks for expaining this again.

I have experimented a bit with using multiple TRPs in the past but never really got it working in a good way...IIRC the AI did not use its avaliable artillery assets particulary often despite having numorous TRPs to choose from...and pretty obvious targets also.

I do however not belive that i tried to set any of the AI artillery assets to come in as reinforcements (they where avaliable from the start)...If i do that will it increase the AIs willingness to use them ? Will they target an enemy force as soon as the arrive in the battle ? Will multiple FOs increase the chans of the AI commiting its artillery aginst those TRPs ?

 

[Sgt.Squarehead]

Not sure about the first question, yes to the second (given the usual delays & spotting factors etc.) and definitely to the third, the spotters quality matters too.

[Glubokii Boy]

I will give the TRP-option another go next time and see  if i can get some decent results from it...

[Combatintman]

In my CMSF scenarios set in Afghanistan and Iraq - if I want insurgent mortars to pose a threat throughout the scenario then I pick a lot of off-map 82mm mortar units with low ammunition settings. I then sequence them to arrive as reinforcements about every 15 minutes or so  (ie 1 x 82mm mortar at the 15 minute point, 1 x 82mm mortar at the 30 minute point etc).  Generally the effect this creates is a series of really short mortar stonks which is just enough to keep the Blue player on their toes. Most of my scenarios have between one and two observers.

Now I accept that CMSF and UNCONs are different from the WW2 titles in terms of response times, C2 links and an absence of TRPs but I certainly think it is an approach worth considering, if for no other reason than you don't get yourself into VP issues and you avoid using up precious AI Group slots for indirect fire assets.

[Sgt.Squarehead]

It's hard in the older titles to model the sort of low-rate nuisance mortar fire we so often see in footage, even 'Harass' is too high a rate of fire really.....I'm looking forward to having on-map mortars for CM:SF II. 

Edited July 23, 2017 by Sgt.Squarehead

[carcer]

On 7/21/2017 at 10:19 PM, Sgt.Squarehead said:

To clarify, just as Jon says, it's all about the destroy unit objectives.....If you assign those Rangers to a German destroy unit objective, they have to make it off the map or the Germans score for them.

I appreciate the clarification Sgt. Squarehead and the info JonS. I'm beginning to understand how the A.I. works as well as the objectives and exit zones. I like the idea Combatintman mentions about short mortar reinforcements with small amounts of ammo. Good info to keep in mind scenario dependent. The A.I. support on the lowest setting (harass) is pretty intense but works for this one. Might even need to add German ammo dumps for resupply depending on what ammo counts really were but then again once the mortars are out of ammo the heavy artillery really does start to represent nuisance fire (10 minutes into scenario). I noticed that adding multiple AI support targets gets more of the artillery into the fight with closest mortar position firing on painted target. I need to try to see if the TRP's will work better now that the assault wave is a more starting force. Before I had just the DD tanks for the first five minutes so what would happen is the spotters would direct heavies on the tanks when the infantry was landing in different sectors.

Currently still trying to hurry to get first wave test mission out. So far I've corrected terrain elevation, correct landing spots, and then just been trying to balance. Whats left is to fix some terrain clipping, touch-ups on sea wall, add a few bushes/trees, special assault company composition for infantry, and a little more balance. Lately I've tried messing with the idea of having A/743rd (6 tanks) land in front of Les Moulins five minutes late because a lot of Omaha scenarios have that happen. After extending research on US side it seems the scenario I've been using as a base only focuses on 2 battalions of 116th in the first 2 waves plus supporting elements. Sounds like a lot of units but it comes together to a battalion strength battle for the boats that made it in. I completely forgot there's a whole 3rd battalion. The object of the critical hit scenario is to accomplish 3 of the following: clear road up the d-1 draw, clear road up the d-3 draw, capture 3 strong-points, have about 10 squads on high-ground, or clear lane through obstacle belt (can't really be modelled in CM?). The scenario takes place from 0630 to 0900, 40 game turns, and company size German reinforcements at turn 21.

Not sure if I want to stick close to just that or go in the direction I was trying to go before which would probably be more arcady. Arcade like in the sense that 3rd battalion could have platoons represent companies, full map in play representing most of the day, give support vehicles later on like the priest howitzer or halftrack howitzer, and have a different force composition similar to the table top game flames of war or something? The current issue is that once the US tanks get the upper-hand the Atlantic wall falls pretty quick. The strong-points might still be difficult to assault since the German infantry AI really just re-positions to the rear trench lines, (Maybe it's possible to get them to return with an AI plan?), but still it's high casualties for first 10 minutes (pretty historical) and then not that many exciting things afterwards. Maybe the test mission will prove different?