Little glitches/observations/suggestions

[Drifter Man]

So, right now I have a situation when I want to direct 60mm mortar fire on an enemy target.

If the spotter is Weapons Platoon HQ, to which the mortar teams are directly subordinated:

• 4th mortar team, within voice communication range (but not visual - it's in woods) ... 5 minutes
• 3rd team, a bit farther in the woods ... out of contact
• 2nd team, far away but positioned next to Company HQ (right now out of radio contact with the Weapons Platoon HQ but the game probably brushes over these short-time radio failures) ... the same 5 minutes. So the Weapons Platoon HQ has to confirm with the Company HQ before ordering its own team to fire. Hmm, I was hoping he will just shout orders over his shoulder and save time.

If the spotter is Company HQ or its XO Team, again, 5 minutes. So the delay due to Weapons Platoon HQ calling Company HQ first is small, if any.

If the spotter is an FO ... 4 minutes. What? Doesn't the FO have to contact Company HQ and the Weapons Platoon HQ anyway? He has no other way of getting through to the 4th team in the woods. I understand that FO is good at coordinating large-caliber off-map artillery, but how can he help with the Company's organic, on-map support?

[Vanir Ausf B]

FOs are faster than HQs with all indirect fires. I'm not qualified to say how realistic that is but it's never been called into question before that can recall.

Edited January 12, 2018 by Vanir Ausf B

[Thewood1]

This is one of those threads where I have to scratch my head a little.  An entire thread started by one person who seems on a crusade to find every possible nit pick.  A member since December and have you even played a scenario all the way through?  I mean, I believe in continuous improvement and all, but in the less than a month that you've owned the game you have two full threads trying sus out every possible issue.  Or is finding issues the game?  

[Erwin]

His first post said "I've been playing around with my CMBN and made a few observations along the way... I'll dump them here in case they could help polishing the game. Nothing game-breaking really." 

We've established that one person's nitpick is another person's major issue.  The guy seems to be trying to be helpful by pointing out these items.

[Vanir Ausf B]

Until a couple of years ago I had probably spent more time testing the games than playing them.

[Drifter Man]

1 hour ago, Thewood1 said:

This is one of those threads where I have to scratch my head a little.  An entire thread started by one person who seems on a crusade to find every possible nit pick.  A member since December and have you even played a scenario all the way through?  I mean, I believe in continuous improvement and all, but in the less than a month that you've owned the game you have two full threads trying sus out every possible issue.  Or is finding issues the game?  

I'm not criticizing the game or the work of the development team - I like all they've done. I know I am nitpicking and also don't insist that anything I "find" is automatically wrong and must be fixed. More than that I want to understand certain things work the way they do. If anyone doesn't like it, feel free to ignore me.

I played CMAK and CMBB for 6-7 years, then started with CMBN in 2013 and played it for about a year. After that I took a break before coming back to it a month ago. I am kind of rediscovering it. It's pretty complex so I think if you want to play it well, you need to understand the details. Yes, I've played a few scenarios all the way through - not the big ones though, they tend to jam up my computer anyway

2 hours ago, Vanir Ausf B said:

FOs are faster than HQs with all indirect fires. I'm not qualified to say how realistic that is but it's never been called into question before that can recall.

Maybe I misunderstood the role of the FO, he is just efficient at spotting for and directing artillery rather than using some special communication channels. My idea was that by having an FO on the map, I somehow get more direct access to off-map artillery.

[Vanir Ausf B]

45 minutes ago, Drifter Man said:

Maybe I misunderstood the role of the FO, he is just efficient at spotting for and directing artillery rather than using some special communication channels. 

Yes, that is how it works in the game.

[LukeFF]

On 1/6/2018 at 11:23 PM, Oliver_88 said:

Noticed some graphical strange-ness on some units that appear to be uv mapping errors with the model. As though one side of the model does not have an region on the textures so the texture from the other sides gets stretched across it. But I imagine they have been seen before as are not that un-obvious. Should I post them in any case, not seeing any obvious posts referencing them during an quick search?

It wouldn't hurt to post them.  

[MOS:96B2P]

9 hours ago, Drifter Man said:

<Snip> I think if you want to play it well, you need to understand the details. <Snip>   

Yes.  And this is a good place to have discussions about those details.  These forums get kind of quiet sometimes.  IMO the more people that post and talk about the details of the game the better.   

9 hours ago, Drifter Man said:

<Snip> Maybe I misunderstood the role of the FO, he is just efficient at spotting for and directing artillery rather than using some special communication channels. My idea was that by having an FO on the map, I somehow get more direct access to off-map artillery.

Fire for Effect times are quicker with a FO.  The higher the experience of any spotter the quicker the FFE times.  The higher the experience of the support unit the quicker the FFE times.  If a TRP is used the FFE time is even quicker.  Example: A Conscript HQ may take 16 minutes for FFE.  An Elite FO using a TRP may take 3 minutes for FFE from the same artillery unit. 

Some support assets require an FO.  The US 4.2 inch mortar, 203mm howitzer, 240mm howitzer, etc. most ships and all aircraft.  In CMRT aircraft are roving.  In CMFB any US HQ can call in airstrikes.      

[A Canadian Cat]

13 hours ago, Thewood1 said:

This is one of those threads where I have to scratch my head a little.  An entire thread started by one person who seems on a crusade to find every possible nit pick.  A member since December and have you even played a scenario all the way through?  I mean, I believe in continuous improvement and all, but in the less than a month that you've owned the game you have two full threads trying sus out every possible issue.  Or is finding issues the game?  

This has been a good thread though. Too frequently people rant and rave about some pet issue that they think means the game is broken and refuse to listen to other peoples opinions and those of us that chime in get called names and the poster gets called names and in the end no one leaves happy.

This thread and the other one have been interesting and informative and for the most part the usual suspects have either stayed away or been, mostly, ignored.

[Drifter Man]

7 hours ago, MOS:96B2P said:

Fire for Effect times are quicker with a FO.  The higher the experience of any spotter the quicker the FFE times.  The higher the experience of the support unit the quicker the FFE times.  If a TRP is used the FFE time is even quicker.  Example: A Conscript HQ may take 16 minutes for FFE.  An Elite FO using a TRP may take 3 minutes for FFE from the same artillery unit. 

Some support assets require an FO.  The US 4.2 inch mortar, 203mm howitzer, 240mm howitzer, etc. most ships and all aircraft.  In CMRT aircraft are roving.  In CMFB any US HQ can call in airstrikes.

I'll take note that FO can land the shells on target faster than HQ, rather than communicating the orders to fire faster. It's a guy specifically trained to do this, unlike say Company HQ team who are trained to do this and a thousand other things.

Has anyone tried to compile data on artillery response time vs type of the spotting unit, its experience and position in force structure in relation to the battery? I found this, there are response time data for German artillery in CMBN, in addition to rate of fire and mission duration info, which is also useful.

[Vanir Ausf B]

41 minutes ago, Drifter Man said:

Has anyone tried to compile data on artillery response time vs type of the spotting unit, its experience and position in force structure in relation to the battery? I found this, there are response time data for German artillery in CMBN, in addition to rate of fire and mission duration info, which is also useful.

There is some more information here but it only lists FO times and only with Elite units. Also note that position in the force structure has no effect on response time. A platoon HQ has the same delay as the battalion HQ.

[MOS:96B2P]

2 hours ago, Drifter Man said:

Has anyone tried to compile data on artillery response time vs type of the spotting unit, its experience and position in force structure in relation to the battery? I found this, there are response time data for German artillery in CMBN, in addition to rate of fire and mission duration info, which is also useful.

There is the below thread on the subject.  The thread was heavily damaged by Photobucket's vandalism.  

 

[Drifter Man]

Thanks both for digging out these references. One of the matters discussed in that thread is how match-up between the spotter and the firing unit affects response times. I did a bunch of tests with on-map organic 60 mm mortars and off-map 155 mm howitzers, with the following spotters:

• Battalion HQ
• Mortar Section HQ (the lowliest HQ but in direct command of the 60mm mortars)
• FO, assigned to the Battalion
• FO, assigned to the 60mm mortar section (tested for mortars only).

All were regular, no leadership or motivation modifiers, and the missions were point-target medium duration/medium intensity approximately to the same spot on the map, with perfect LOS.

I measured:

• "Receiving" phase duration - until the fire mission request is confirmed by the firing unit
• "Preparing" phase duration - until the first spotting round falls on the map (not applicable for on-map mortars, where I've included this phase in "Spotting"
• "Spotting" phase duration - until "fire for effect" order is given
• "Delivery" phase duration - until the first for effect round hits the map (for on-map mortars, until the round is fired)

Below are the averages of (only) 3 tests for each case. It appears that Mortar Section HQ can reach its own mortars by about 1 minute faster than Battalion HQ, but in the three tests I did, it needed more spotting rounds (4-5) than Battalion HQ (3 in all three cases), so the delivery time was 6-7 minutes. Declared delivery times were 6 minutes for Battalion HQ and 5 minutes for Mortar Section HQ. Matchup with respect to force structure matters for on-map mortars, but not much. The FOs had a short receiving phase and needed between 2-4 spotting rounds. I can't say if it matters where in the Battalion the FO is attached. Force structure matters but not much.

For the 155 mm Howitzers, there doesn't seem to be a big difference between Battalion HQ or low-level Mortar Section HQ in response times. Both have declared 13 minutes and achieved between 11:20 and 14:32. Battalion HQ needed 2, 7 and 4 spotting rounds, Mortar Section HQ needed 5, 5 and 3. The FO cut both communication time and spotting time by about a half, his performance matching the declared 8 minute delivery time. 2, 3 and 3 spotting rounds were needed.

Edited January 13, 2018 by Drifter Man

[MOS:96B2P]

@Drifter Man nice graphs.  A clever way to display the information.  Thanks for sharing.  +1

[Sgt.Squarehead]

Yup, that's pretty easy to comprehend.....Good stuff. 

[Drifter Man]

Force structure is considered but sometimes the difference is too small to show on minute scale. What's important at the end of the day is the delay between your order and the moment shells start falling, and the declared delivery time you get for the mission in minutes is a good indication of that.

[Bulletpoint]

I know that some people have been wishing for much shorter delivery times when the mortar section uses its own HQ, in immediate contact with the mortars.