Jump to content
  • Announcements

    • Battlefront.com

      Special Upgrade 4 Tech Tips   12/27/2016

      Hi all! Now that Upgrade 4 is out and about in large quantities we have now discovered a few SNAFUs that happen out in the scary, real world that is home computing.  Fortunately the rate of problems is extremely small and so far most are easily worked around.  We've identified a few issues that have similar causes which we have clear instructions for work arounds here they are: 1.  CMRT Windows customers need to re-license their original key.  This is a result of improvements to the licensing system which CMBN, CMBS, and CMFB are already using.  To do this launch CMRT with the Upgrade and the first time enter your Engine 4 key.  Exit and then use the "Activate New Products" shortcut in your CMRT folder, then enter your Engine 3 license key.  That should do the trick. 2.  CMRT and CMBN MacOS customers have a similar situation as #2, however the "Activate New Products" is inside the Documents folder in their respective CM folders.  For CMBN you have to go through the process described above for each of your license keys.  There is no special order to follow. 3.  For CMBS and CMFB customers, you need to use the Activate New Products shortcut and enter your Upgrade 4 key.  If you launch the game and see a screen that says "LICENSE FAILURE: Base Game 4.0 is required." that is an indication you haven't yet gone through that procedure.  Provided you had a properly functioning copy before installing the Upgrade, that should be all you need to do.  If in the future you have to install from scratch on a new system you'll need to do the same procedure for both your original license key and your Upgrade 4.0 key. 4.  There's always a weird one and here it is.  A few Windows users are not getting "Activate New Products" shortcuts created during installation.  Apparently anti-virus software is preventing the installer from doing its job.  This might not be a problem right now, but it will prove to be an issue at some point in the future.  The solution is to create your own shortcut using the following steps: Disable your anti-virus software before you do anything. Go to your Desktop, right click on the Desktop itself, select NEW->SHORTCUT, use BROWSE to locate the CM EXE that you are trying to fix. The location is then written out. After it type in a single space and then paste this:

      -showui

      Click NEXT and give your new Shortcut a name (doesn't matter what). Confirm that and you're done. Double click on the new Shortcut and you should be prompted to license whatever it is you need to license. At this time we have not identified any issues that have not been worked around.  Let's hope it stays that way Steve
    • Battlefront.com

      Forum Reorganization   10/12/2017

      We've reorganized our Combat Mission Forums to reflect the fact that most of you are now running Engine 4 and that means you're all using the same basic code.  Because of that, there's no good reason to have the discussion about Combat Mission spread out over 5 separate sets of Forums.  There is now one General Discussion area with Tech Support and Scenario/Mod Tips sub forums.  The Family specific Tech Support Forums have been moved to a new CM2 Archives area and frozen in place. You might also notice we dropped the "x" from distinguishing between the first generation of CM games and the second.  The "x" was reluctantly adopted back in 2005 or so because at the time we had the original three CM games on European store shelves entitled CM1, CM2, and CM3 (CMBO, CMBB, and CMAK).  We didn't want to cause confusion so we added the "x".  Time has moved on and we have to, so the "x" is now gone from our public vocabulary as it has been from our private vocabulary for quite a while already.  Side note, Charles *NEVER* used the "x" so now we're all speaking the same language as him.  Which is important since he is the one programming them
JSj

Fire suppression from small arms discussion

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, DougPhresh said:

I can only speak to Afghanistan, but much more time was spent hunkered down because of mortar fire or pot shots disrupting a patrol than pitched battles with the Taliban. In my own experience it was less pinned-down hugging the earth for dear life (most of the time!) and more that, okay we now have to deploy, find cover, form into a section attack and so on. That kind of suppression is modeled pretty well in CM, as you can't carry out a routine move under fire.

One of the primary purposes of any decent wargame is to remind junior officers in military service that their new commission simply means they are now ready to find out that everything they've learned doesn't work in real life ;)

4 hours ago, DougPhresh said:


e: Quick question since a dev has responded - in CM1, how did Human Wave, Assault and Advance work?  Did units move differently under fire before?

CM1 had some core game mechanics that weren't all that good when it came to suppression.  Though to be fair to us, CM1 did suppression better than most.

The primary problem with CM1 was the "volley" concept where all the units weapons fired at one time and, obviously, impacted the target at one time.  This presented major challenges on the game design standpoint because suppression is all about the moment.  Well, if a unit can only fire (let's say) 6 times in a turn, which means in a 1 on 1 matchup there's 6 opportunities to suppress or not suppress the enemy unit.  In CM2 there's perhaps as many as 600 (CM2 works in partial seconds).  In CM1 all weapons fired at once, in CM2 weapons fire individually.

What this means is that in CM1 there's very little capacity for subtly.  Unit A unloads ALL of its weapons and maybe it suppresses Unit B.  In CM2 Unit A fires only what's appropriate and maybe it suppresses Unit B.  In CM1 if Unit A didn't achieve it's result it might have to wait another 9 seconds before it had another chance, but in CM2 the chance of suppression is partial second by partial second.  Major impact on ammo consumption, spotting considerations, movement, and just about everything else.  Since real life is varied and partial second by second, CM2 was a lot easier to balance effects because everything was inherently looked at realistically.  In CM1 was more like a board game with abstract conventions needing to be balanced out with other abstract conventions.  It was a nightmare to try and get realistic behavior out of CM1, it's relatively easy with CM2.

OK, back to the question ;-)  From what I remember, CM1 worked like this:

Human Wave suppressed self preservation TacAI by artificially holding up the Morale level even when getting pounded on.  This meant the unit would keep moving LONG after it normally would have gone to ground or retreated.  Casualties be damned!  Though IIRC Global Morale could cause Human Wave attacks to crash and burn if it was too low.

Assault was similar to Human Wave in that it told the unit to "grow a pair" and put up with minor annoyances like Smitty (or Schmidtie) getting killed.  However, Morale wasn't messed with so badly as Human Wave.  It also focused the unit's combat power on the area being moved to.  IIRC a unit had to pass a "Morale Check" before launching an Assault.

Advance... I don't remember, but likely it was similar messing around with the Morale threshold triggers than it was anything else.

Steve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

You can no doubt find these videos too by following various links, but be warned, they are not pleasant viewing.  :mellow:

If you ever find yourself thinking this, then you should also think "this isn't the place to post them".  Which is why I removed them.  We don't allow snuff or gore imagery on this Forum.  As you say, it's easy enough to find using the Googles so there's absolutely no reason why it needs to be here.

Nothing more than a warning this time, but don't do it again.  It is a bannable offense.  See Forum rules.

Steve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

@Battlefront.com  Gotcha, I misunderstood your post at first and thought you had removed the videos of CTS in action.

The images you did remove were from 1945 France, I posted them as a reference point, to point out that perceived collaborators always receive rough treatment, even in countries we would normally consider the height of civilisation and democracy. 

4 hours ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

You can no doubt find these videos too by following various links, but be warned, they are not pleasant viewing.  :mellow:

This comment was actually made in relation to videos of atrocities filmed in Mosul during and after ISIS' defeat, vaguely referenced in the Guardian article.....I pointedly did not link to them and in fact have made other posts rebutting the accusations made against CTS in relation to at least one of these videos in my Mosul thread (I didn't link to them there either BTW). 

I'm not sympathising with anyone (other than CTS), just stating the facts to give perspective to the distinctly vague account provided in the Guardian article that was linked to just above. 

Apologies for the double confusion (and the inappropriate images).  B)

Edited by Sgt.Squarehead

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There was no confusion about your intent, it was clarity that you have broken pretty solid rules for posting disturbing imagery that was the issue.  We talk about death and destruction in pretty much every thread on this Forum because, in some way shape or form, it relates to Combat Mission's subject matter at some level.  Just imagine if every poster decided to make his point by posting pictures of the Human consequences of warfare on a regular basis.  Not a place many would want to visit unless they have a gore fetish, right?  Right.  Right ;)

Steve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
12 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

Assault was similar to Human Wave in that it told the unit to "grow a pair" and put up with minor annoyances like Smitty (or Schmidtie) getting killed.  However, Morale wasn't messed with so badly as Human Wave.  It also focused the unit's combat power on the area being moved to.  IIRC a unit had to pass a "Morale Check" before launching an Assault.

Advance... I don't remember, but likely it was similar messing around with the Morale threshold triggers than it was anything else.

Steve

On this idea of artificially 'grow a pair' adjustment to morale from the CM1 days, has this ever been thought about for limited CM2 use? Why I ask relates to my biggest personal thump head on table gripe relating to the TacAI that makes pixeltruppen look dumb as two bricks at times. I keep running into it, particularly in urban fights going building to building. A fire team/squad conducts a move order and when only one or two action squares from their destination "Johnny" gets hit.

At this point, rather than working out they are a couple of strides to their destination they stop and decide to flee the way they came which means running back through the same LOF that caused 'Johhny' to go down. I've seen this occur even when the unit that lost 'Johhny' realises immediately where they took fire from based on a strong sound or visible contact. There also appears to be no factor in play based on the action tiles the unit is about to enter at the end of the way point. ie. "Hey my destination has a giant stone wall between me and the shooter, I'll likely be safe there than heading back the way I came."

Granted I fully expect unit experience would certainly play a role here, with Conscript and Green troops being more likely to opt to simply drop to the ground ground and call for a change of pants, but when Regular and above rated troops have this reaction as well it gets 'weird' watching replays. I've never been in the military or near an active combat zone (thankfully!) so please correct me if I'm wrong, but I can't see a trained soldier being taught from basic that the best thing to do when coming under fire is to turn around and run through the same LOF again to give the enemy another chance.

Could the 'grow a pair' unit morale adjustment for the final few action squares help alleviate instances like this?

Edited by Ithikial_AU

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

There was no confusion about your intent, it was clarity that you have broken pretty solid rules for posting disturbing imagery that was the issue.  We talk about death and destruction in pretty much every thread on this Forum because, in some way shape or form, it relates to Combat Mission's subject matter at some level.  Just imagine if every poster decided to make his point by posting pictures of the Human consequences of warfare on a regular basis.  Not a place many would want to visit unless they have a gore fetish, right?  Right.  Right ;)

Steve

Appreciate the consideration fella, I truthfully wasn't aware of the images rules, but I am now so I won't repeat it.

I must confess that I've also posted an image from Belsen elsewhere (my maternal grandfather was part of the clean up operation there) and I can't edit the post myself to remove it.  I believe it's in my Mosul thread.  The reason for posting it was exactly as above, to show that even the most civilised people can wilfully participate in horrific things in extremis.....Indeed I vaguely recall it being in relation to the very subject that triggered the posting in this thread, accusations of atrocities in Iraq, post ISIS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

To address the question about the 'Advance' order, I can quote a bit from memory:

Advance simulates the dashing from cover, to cover. Thus it results in lower unit exposure to enemy fire while moving, but heavily taxes fatigue for the duration of the movement.

Edited by SLIM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, SLIM said:

Advance simulates the dashing from cover, to cover. Thus it results in lower unit exposure to enemy fire while moving, but heavily taxes fatigue for the duration of the movement.

So, pretty much as the present Hunt command?

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Michael Emrys said:
3 hours ago, SLIM said:

Advance simulates the dashing from cover, to cover. Thus it results in lower unit exposure to enemy fire while moving, but heavily taxes fatigue for the duration of the movement.

So, pretty much as the present Hunt command?

Yes, if you think Elmer Fudd is dashing when he goes hunting...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Michael Emrys said:

So, pretty much as the present Hunt command?

Michael

Nope.....That would be 'Contact'.

Advance is more aggressive (they don't stop) and massively more draining on fatigue (as I recall, it's been a while since I studied it in any detail despite only playing CM:BB a couple of days ago).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Spoofed me on this one. From the title thought I would find some good Combat Mission game info/technique on examples/methods that I could use on those rascally pixeltruppen.;)

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

With the return of hull-down, could there be room for the return of some of the other CM1 commands? I wouldn’t mind something between hunt and assault, for instance and it sounds like advance fit the bill.

Edited by DougPhresh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

JSj,

My understanding is that in battle, troops seldom actually see the foe. Rather, they are taking fire from some area and responding to that. A Vietnam era infantry manual I once had clearly showed an SL directing fire and defining the left and right limits of what's to be suppressed in order to do so. Things may've changed since then, chiefly on the US end because of widely proliferated telescopic sights, but unless there's a visible foe, it's back to aiming at muzzle flashes, dirt puffs, flying grass and the like as indicators of where fire is coming from before the reports from that fire are heard. Common sense would suggest that if a target can be seen well enough to put a round within a meter of it, perhaps the better course would simply be to shoot that particular individual foe or put a burst into a team or weapon crew. As for the question someone raised about whether 9 mm can suppress, let me provide a direct and nearly fatal personal example.

Many moons ago, decades before 9/11, I was on a plinking outing with Dad's Marine buddy, Dad and some friends on some isolated patch of a sprawling Marine base. We'd been shooting at targets and decided to try something more interesting after someone got the idea of shooting emptpty cartridge boxes as they floated down a small stream.We deployed midway down along the steep bank, and I settled into position with I forget what weapon. In went  the boxes one after another as the one before was destroyed, and firing began. My focus was solely on the target, and as far as I knew, I was on the same firing line as everyone else. Wrong. Dad was farther up the bank, a fact unknown to me until I started to stand up up to reload--at the instant he let fly a round from his monster Steyr GB08! That bullet did part my hair, I went down hard and instantly, and I turned aound to see Dad, jaw fully dropped, aghast and white as the proverbial sheet. This incident traumatized everyone so greatly that it completely ended the shooting outing. Though I've never been in anything like that casual shooting environment since, you'd best believe I always check now where all the other shooters are relative to me. Also, a dear friend of mine who was a SEAL going back to the Vietnam War has told me details of firefights I'd not encountered before. The pertinent one here (and Hollywood doesn't seem to know about it, nor has been in any documentary I've seen or book I've read) is, as he put it, if bullets get close enough to you "Those suckers burn." Mind, this may apply only to AR and MG fire, in his case, AK-47 fire from the Viet Cong he fought in the Rung Sat Special Area of South Vietnam. I was about a meter in front of Dad, and though I felt the wind, I happily didn't get a burn to go with my hair parting. Yes, 9 mm can suppress!

Regards,

John Kettler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, John Kettler said:

someone got the idea of shooting emptpty cartridge boxes as they floated down a small stream.We deployed midway down along the steep bank, and I settled into position with I forget what weapon. In went  the boxes one after another as the one before was destroyed

I know you just shared a story about how you nearly got shot, so excuse me for a change of focus, but .. you dumped your trash in the river?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Bulletpoint said:

I know you just shared a story about how you nearly got shot, so excuse me for a change of focus, but .. you dumped your trash in the river?

Dont know how old you are Bulletpoint, but this is what everybody did untill the 80s. And it wasnt limited to rivers, the sea, forests and lakes were included.

And please dont deviate from the topic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bulletpoint,

Not that it's a good look, certainly not from today's perspectives, these were two small cartridge boxes made from thin cardboard, not today's monstrosities with individual plastic cartridge wells, etc. That was all: no pop bottles, cans, or anything else. All we were thinking of at the time was having moving targets. This said, I was still suppressed and traumatized from nearly getting my head blown off, Indeed, it was so overwhelming at the time, the real import registered a bit later, after I'd had some time to process it. At the time, I was afraid Dad was going to die of a heart attack because he was so shattered and full of anguish over nearly killing his firstborn. A bunch of us learned some hard lessons that day, and I'm sure no one present ever forgot how close we came to my brains being blown apart. People have been turned off firearms forever by far far less. I came out of it with, shall we say, a unique perspective on the dangers of accidental shooting and the need for unceasing SA while in a situation with firearms in use.

Regards,

John Kettler

Edited by John Kettler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/10/2018 at 12:47 AM, John Kettler said:

JSj,

... Common sense would suggest that if a target can be seen well enough to put a round within a meter of it, perhaps the better course would simply be to shoot that particular individual foe or put a burst into a team or weapon crew...

I think you need to re-read the article. The point is that firers will (more often than not) miss what they are aiming at under battle conditions. With a single shot weapon on the range, a firer might have a group of 100mm, which will hit a head sized target most of the time. However under battle conditions they will miss that target most of the time. However teaching them to put a round through a 1m square aiming point every 3 seconds is more achievable and efficient. Putting 10 rounds through that 1m square doesn't give additional effect, and (with a single shot automatic weapon) probably wont happen, as to get that rate of fire aiming goes by the board completely (ditto LMG bursts).  I think the point is that suppression is best achieved/sustained by slowing the rate of fire and holding consistent aim points. A single rifleman (auto rifle) can probably keep suppressed one target at 1/3 rd per sec which is  much better than firing a much higher number of shots over a wider area. More realistically a team can suppress 2-3 m of linear position for a long time if controlled properly but if not will run out of ammo very quickly and not achieve measurable suppression.

 

The article is indeed very positive to a device sold by the organisation assisting the writer, but that doesn't make it wrong!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×