Jump to content

Resuming Carillon Nose campaign project


Recommended Posts

Looking forward to it, when ready! :)

When seeing or thinking about briefing maps I appear to like more the ones showing friendly attack (or defense) directions buttom-up and not top down (or left-right/right-left). This gives me usually a quicker and better grasp of the terrain situation for the task. Edit: I know we´re limited by the briefings screens format dimensions for the pics, so that might possibly be something for BFC to allow something different in the future.

Edited by RockinHarry
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posting this over from another thread.

15 hours ago, RockinHarry said:

same here and have quite a big bunch of them, incl. german originals from WW2 period. Stunning how much of all that can be applied in the game successfully. B)

Another link to a well known document I think: The German Squad in Combat No 9

So I am presently trying to puzzle out the German tactical defensive scheme for the La Meauffe sector, consulting reasonable historical documentation from both sides, (including detailed diagrams pasted above).

And this has led me to think about  the general tempo of battalion scale infantry assaults on prepared positions, both WW2 and contemporary, and how these might be simulated realistically  in a single CM scenario.

1. As noted in other threads, many CM assaults become frantic races against the clock. Forces are not only pushed to their endurance limit and beyond, but are freely retasked by the omniscient player commander to ad hoc maneuvers well outside their original orders.

Dense defended areas the size of my game map (1400x800m) are routinely swept clear in 90-120 minutes of intense nonstop rooty-toot.

2. Even if we as wargamers can pad the clock 2x with abstracted 'off clock' lulls in the action, during which medevac, resupply and artillery spotting occur but there are no major movements or exchanges of fire, it all just seems like too much, too fast.

3. In contrast, in the real world PURPLE HEART CORNER action of June 17th 1944, incompletely clearing a small town of 25 odd structures took half a fresh US battalion with ample artillery a *full day* (0530-1845) to accomplish, with significant US casualties (30+, overwhelmingly shellfire).

4.  Enemy casualties in this action aren't tallied (a couple of PWs only). No wonder: resistance was said to be 'snipers', long range MG fire and nonstop shelling. This is consistent with the German MLR being below the town; they would not detail scarce infantry to hold it, only to bloody the nose of the Amis. Ergo, few bodies to count. (These reports prompted General Corlett the Corps commander to browbeat his subordinates to get things "cleaned up down there", in total disregard of the actual conditions).

5. Nonetheless, in spite of their lopsided manpower advantage, this was a nasty fight for 1/119. The still green GIs advance cautiously from house to house, wary of mines, traps, snipers and the rrrrrrrrrip of Spandaus. Frequent stonks of mortars or "88s" cause them to scatter for cover. The doughs can't see Jerry, can't silence the incoming. But hour by hour, the stretchers keep coming back while frustration and exhaustion set in. What's the solution? Call the guns! But onto what? More time goes by.

.... So, how do I put that into a scenario?

(What's that you say? That doesn't sound like a fun 'game' at all? Well sorry, can't help ya with that, son. I'm all about the digital history, trying to face what the doggies actually faced. And there are a few here who are like minded. Go play something else if that's not you.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Think I´d make ammo loadouts and supply for attackers somewhat limited (50-70%) in order to prevent the player too much rushing forward, shooting at everything that shows up (unnecessary ammo expenditure). Anyway IMO the games infantry standard loadouts (at 100%) appear to be based more on "pulled all from the trucks" and ready for defense situation. I´d imagine frontline troops, particularly attacking in exhausting terrain would carry far less combat loadouts and instead let ammo carrier guys (or vehicles) follow more or less close behind. Different for well prepared defenders who usually have even extra ammo assembled in caches and such. I could imagine while limiting the close attack forces ammo some, giving some infantry extra loads (through aquire) which then can be "shared" normally within an apropiate formation. Or using carryable dumps, or vehicles that have the required loadouts.

A "limit losses" end game bonus might also help to take some speed from the attacking player, through greater bias on caring for wounded, or sweeping an enemy from a particular small area so that WIA´s can be reached and aided.

Germans surely had registered the area meticulously for all their guns and heavy weapons for quick and resolute actions. If germans is meant to be played by the AIP this could be somewhat difficult to pull off with map and orders. Couple of TRP´s are required, at least 300m far from occupied german lines (if medium mortars) and these also need (several) german FO´s having LOS to these TRP´s. Similar with other heavy weapons (HMG) and Pak maybe. This makes the AIP react with quick response Arty. better and more reiliably, so when setting up german positions this all needs considered and synchronized.

Attacking US player needs taking this into consideration as well, having to watch out for possible german FO´s positions and deal with them by blindly engaging them (area fire), or smoke barrage usage. Wind strength and direction setting for the mission should be considered and adapted as necessary. No use for smoke, if the wind blows in strength and the wrong way.

These would be some ideas which come in mind, if I´d tackle this sort of battle, but can also be applied generally in a mission.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, LongLeftFlank said:

And this has led me to think about  the general tempo of battalion scale infantry assaults on prepared positions, both WW2 and contemporary, and how these might be simulated realistically  in a single CM scenario.

1. As noted in other threads, many CM assaults become frantic races against the clock. Forces are not only pushed to their endurance limit and beyond, but are freely retasked by the omniscient player commander to ad hoc maneuvers well outside their original orders.

Dense defended areas the size of my game map (1400x800m) are routinely swept clear in 90-120 minutes of intense nonstop rooty-toot.

2. Even if we as wargamers can pad the clock 2x with abstracted 'off clock' lulls in the action, during which medevac, resupply and artillery spotting occur but there are no major movements or exchanges of fire, it all just seems like too much, too fast.

3. In contrast, in the real world PURPLE HEART CORNER action of June 17th 1944, incompletely clearing a small town of 25 odd structures took half a fresh US battalion with ample artillery a *full day* (0530-1845) to accomplish, with significant US casualties (30+, overwhelmingly shellfire).

4.  Enemy casualties in this action aren't tallied (a couple of PWs only). No wonder: resistance was said to be 'snipers', long range MG fire and nonstop shelling. This is consistent with the German MLR being below the town; they would not detail scarce infantry to hold it, only to bloody the nose of the Amis. Ergo, few bodies to count. (These reports prompted General Corlett the Corps commander to browbeat his subordinates to get things "cleaned up down there", in total disregard of the actual conditions).

5. Nonetheless, in spite of their lopsided manpower advantage, this was a nasty fight for 1/119. The still green GIs advance cautiously from house to house, wary of mines, traps, snipers and the rrrrrrrrrip of Spandaus. Frequent stonks of mortars or "88s" cause them to scatter for cover. The doughs can't see Jerry, can't silence the incoming. But hour by hour, the stretchers keep coming back while frustration and exhaustion set in. What's the solution? Call the guns! But onto what? More time goes by.

.... So, how do I put that into a scenario?

Yes, and I feel your pain...It's a hard problem to simulate realistically for a Scenario/Operation...I have always said (I'm sure the same for many others) why does it take several days in RL to take a town, but in CM we can magically do it in 2 hours :-(

Edited by JoMc67
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, LongLeftFlank said:

Forces are not only pushed to their endurance limit and beyond, but are freely retasked by the omniscient player commander to ad hoc maneuvers well outside their original orders.  

This re-tasking, on the move, in the middle of combat is IMO one of the most unrealistic things that happen.  I have house rules I use when I play against the AI.  Every platoon is given a mission type order and axis of advance which is recorded on a Word document.  The platoon must attempt to follow the intent of this order.  For the order to be altered command must have reasonable knowledge of the new situation (contact icons), there must be C2, and time delays (mostly using the Pause command) to modify orders are enforced etc.  In reality even my system is still to fast.  @JoMc67 has some interesting ideas about using soft factors (unit attributes) to slow thing down.  The soft factor idea may help with what you are trying to do.  

 

5 hours ago, LongLeftFlank said:

5. Nonetheless, in spite of their lopsided manpower advantage, this was a nasty fight for 1/119. The still green GIs advance cautiously from house to house, wary of mines, traps, snipers and the rrrrrrrrrip of Spandaus. Frequent stonks of mortars or "88s" cause them to scatter for cover. The doughs can't see Jerry, can't silence the incoming. But hour by hour, the stretchers keep coming back while frustration and exhaustion set in. What's the solution? Call the guns! But onto what? More time goes by.

.... So, how do I put that into a scenario?

Just some ideas (since you asked) :)

I would stagger the arrival of friendly units.  For two reasons. 

First, IMO, it can be a bit intimidating to open a scenario, look in the setup zone and view an entire battalion of infantry and attached units that need to be sorted, acquire ammo, target arcs, movement orders etc.  

The second reason is to slow things down.  With less units on the map at the beginning of the scenario, but knowledge that reinforcements are en-route, most reasonable players would probably try to attack the objective in a slower more methodical way.

Maybe one company at a time spread out over a time span that is reasonable for what you are trying to accomplish. 

Also, regarding the US units, I would consider the use of Unit Spot Objectives.  The later arriving units would be unit spot objectives for the Germans.  The later their on map arrival the higher their spot objective VP value (or whatever works best for your purposes).  Example: B Company arrives 30 minutes into the scenario and is a 200VP spot objective for the Germans.  C Company arrives 1 hour into the scenario and is a 300VP spot objective.  So the more units the player throws into the meat grinder the more Victory Points it will cost him.  Since if they enter the battle they will be spotted and cost VP.  This will deter most players (who read the briefing) from quickly charging new units into the battle.  They will be more reluctant and thoughtful (slower) about how and where to deploy the reinforcing units.     

You could also have most of the artillery arrive over time as reinforcements and maybe with less than full ammo load outs.  The player would need to be more thoughtful (slower) with the use of artillery and resulting ground advance.  I don't know what caliber artillery they used in RL but IMO the less US arty over 105mm the better.   

Give the German AI plenty of TRPs and FOs.  Give the US Two or three TRPs or none at all.  

Use AP mines to slow the US advance and make the player cautious.  Play up the presence of the mines in the briefing.  Make liberal use of AP mines outside doorways facing the US side of the map.  The German AI can still panic out the rear facing doors (hopefully) without running into their own mines.  The US player would start to rely on demo charges for many building entries.  The US engineer / demo teams could also be limited and spread out with the reinforcements.  This would also slow things down.  "I got two engineer squads coming in 20 minutes.  I better wait on those guys before the next big push." 

Maybe have a German AI group or two composed of snipers.  This AI group could be  kept in relative safety from US firepower on the ground level of houses etc.  When the US advance reaches a location, determined by you, it triggers the sniper group to move to the upper floors of their buildings and engage.  This tactic could probably be repeated with different AI groups in different locations as the US advanced.      

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, LongLeftFlank said:

1. As noted in other threads, many CM assaults become frantic races against the clock. Forces are not only pushed to their endurance limit and beyond, but are freely retasked by the omniscient player commander to ad hoc maneuvers well outside their original orders.

Dense defended areas the size of my game map (1400x800m) are routinely swept clear in 90-120 minutes of intense nonstop rooty-toot.

2. Even if we as wargamers can pad the clock 2x with abstracted 'off clock' lulls in the action, during which medevac, resupply and artillery spotting occur but there are no major movements or exchanges of fire, it all just seems like too much, too fast.

I would agree with this, in game we push too hard to fast. I would however say 2x the clock is not enough but rather 3x or even better 4x.

4 hours ago, LongLeftFlank said:

3. In contrast, in the real world PURPLE HEART CORNER action of June 17th 1944, incompletely clearing a small town of 25 odd structures took half a fresh US battalion with ample artillery a *full day* (0530-1845) to accomplish, with significant US casualties (30+, overwhelmingly shellfire).

I would suggest then a 3.5 to 4 hour scenario. 

 

4 hours ago, LongLeftFlank said:

4.  Enemy casualties in this action aren't tallied (a couple of PWs only). No wonder: resistance was said to be 'snipers', long range MG fire and nonstop shelling. This is consistent with the German MLR being below the town; they would not detail scarce infantry to hold it, only to bloody the nose of the Amis. Ergo, few bodies to count. (These reports prompted General Corlett the Corps commander to browbeat his subordinates to get things "cleaned up down there", in total disregard of the actual conditions).

5. Nonetheless, in spite of their lopsided manpower advantage, this was a nasty fight for 1/119. The still green GIs advance cautiously from house to house, wary of mines, traps, snipers and the rrrrrrrrrip of Spandaus. Frequent stonks of mortars or "88s" cause them to scatter for cover. The doughs can't see Jerry, can't silence the incoming. But hour by hour, the stretchers keep coming back while frustration and exhaustion set in. What's the solution? Call the guns! But onto what? More time goes by.

.... So, how do I put that into a scenario?

(What's that you say? That doesn't sound like a fun 'game' at all? Well sorry, can't help ya with that, son. I'm all about the digital history, trying to face what the doggies actually faced. And there are a few here who are like minded. Go play something else if that's not you.)

I would suggest including @RockinHarry invisible enemy icons mod for use with this battle. Use all of them so the human player has zero clue where the enemy is beyond what can be seen on screen. 

As for points, set up the parameters to match the battle as close as possible. If the US lost 30 men out of a half battalion, it would be roughly 10% of their force. Have the briefing state this is the goal as clearly as possible and set the points so if the player exceeds this limit, the best they can do is a draw. Set most of the US artillery as reinforcements to prevent the player from flatting everything in a turn 1 preordered  mass arty drop.

Build some "safe" houses for the German side. No windows or doors on the bottom floors facing the US side, but the upper floors with great LOS to the US side. This should protect them from all but the heaviest artillery direct hits. Use snipers/scouts/breach teams on the bottom floor set to ambush at 75 meters. Give them terrain triggers to rise to the upper floors, creating ambush zones. 

Use plenty of wire, hedgehogs, TRP's and spread enough mines around so everytime the player encounters an obstacle, they will assume it has mines, and need to find a new path or deal with them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Heirloom_Tomato said:

Build some "safe" houses for the German side. No windows or doors on the bottom floors facing the US side, but the upper floors with great LOS to the US side. This should protect them from all but the heaviest artillery direct hits. Use snipers/scouts/breach teams on the bottom floor set to ambush at 75 meters. Give them terrain triggers to rise to the upper floors, creating ambush zones. 

good one! +1

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Terrific feedback, many thanks all. So these are my core design challenges:

1. Put the player into this difficult tactical situation where Jerry sees him but he can't easily get back at them

(btw CM could really use some kind of spotting inhibitor 'camo' counter for snipers,  FOs, ATW teams etc.) 

2.  Present this clearly as a "time lapse" all day slog. Not the HBO nonstop charges and rat-a-tat;  a series of specific clear and occupy taskings, punctuated by "hit the dirt!" and extended pauses to rally, observe and clear mines and to get the increasingly rattled GIs to clear the next one.

Kind of that 'union road crew' effect you see in so much unedited combat footage: just a few guys up in harms way doing the work while the rest look on ('provide cover fire') from safety.

3. With that accomplished, I still need to give the player CO some reasonable latitude to manage within the boundaries (i.e. score a Victory by keeping casualties below historical).
... Or to defy the odds and try to overachieve with some bold rushes.

Edited by LongLeftFlank
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, MOS:96B2P said:

This re-tasking, on the move, in the middle of combat is IMO one of the most unrealistic things that happen.  I have house rules I use when I play against the AI.  Every platoon is given a mission type order and axis of advance which is recorded on a Word document.  The platoon must attempt to follow the intent of this order.  For the order to be altered command must have reasonable knowledge of the new situation (contact icons), there must be C2, and time delays (mostly using the Pause command) to modify orders are enforced etc.  In reality even my system is still to fast.  @JoMc67 has some interesting ideas about using soft factors (unit attributes) to slow thing down.  The soft factor idea may help with what you are trying to do.  

The SPWAW game has a nice feature, simulating this sort of command/order restriction called "Command Control". With this on, the concerning unit/formation will be restricted in movement away from the previously set HQ objective, particularly when out of control range for units not in contact with their immediate HQ. It´s a bit abstracted by use of HQ command points, but does the purpose very very well IMO.

This feature might inspire to try in similar ways by using CM pecularities. Since soo much on unit performances depend upon the games leader ratings, I´d likely try approaching this way: Make combat squads leaders rather of the 0 or minus type (independent from experience and other soft data) and focus more on Qty. raised for the Plt. and Coy leaders, so dependence from HQ in command range would be of more vital importance for the frontline combat squads. Same time and the player beeing aware of it, he needs to take even more care on his little HQ health and beeing in C2 with his subordinates. Maybe somewhat difficult to pull off due to the US beeing lavishly equipped with radios, but at lowest level (Plt) this approach migth be worth a try and more so in bocage terrain with the usually low range LOS. This in hindsight, HQ/leader groups could also be assigned considerably more points for unit objective, when destroyed or receiving losses.

Edited by RockinHarry
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, LongLeftFlank said:

1. Put the player into this difficult tactical situation where Jerry sees him but he can't easily get back at them

(btw CM could really use some kind of spotting inhibitor 'camo' counter for snipers,  FOs, ATW teams etc.) 

I like using single snipers or teams quite a lot, both for spotting and sniping purposes, but very preferably at ranges considerably above 300m. Otherwise they´ll become dead meat quickly. For ranges of 300m and below and very good concealment & cover, a single sniper (Headcount 50%) might survive long enough to make his presence felt, but needs to switch position more oftenly. Terrain triggers (enemy) give him opportuniy to switch positions if enemy coming too close, as would be low morale, causing the sniper to back off automatically once sufficiently suppresssed by enemy return fire. At ranges above 300m, preferably at 400-600m+, survival chances are far better with appropiate cover & concealment terrain. Here the sniper teams spotter (Headcount 100%) comes more handy with his binocs helping to aquire targets at these longer ranges. Raising experience and leader rating also make sense here dealing with the longer ranges.

Snipers can preferably be subordinated to Coy. or even Bn. HQ, as these normally are more positioned towards the Hinterland, so these can help a retreating sniper in AIP hands to rally and gain usable combat stats again. Off course also works without direct subordination when higher HQ is in range and taking over C2 automatically. So a good placement of these higher Coy and Bn is also of value and worth beeing considered for this case.

For small teams survival (FO, HQ ect.) good experience, leader stats ect are of good worth when combined with "ambush" settings, as is other known factors like trerrain conceal/cover. "Retreat" (or any other) order and  enemy terrain trigger again comes handy, for getting important AIP units out of potential danger zones.

Sniper effectivity can be very restricted in bocage and other close cover terrain. Well prepared german defenses as was the St. Lo area, usually were improved by adapting the terrain towards the enemy by means of removing brush, trees or even houses to get better and deeper lines of fire. Too some extend this can be simulated on our CM maps as well, by determining halfway good friendly sniper positions and then adapt the map towards the desired kill zones in enemy approach lanes, preferably from a flank. Sometimes adding a gapped bocage in place of an ungapped one might do the trick, even if the created keyhole is just very small. Might suffice for slowing down an attacker.

Sometimes there´s a good sniper position AS , but it just needs one more meter in elevation to get desired LOS/LOF. Ditch lock it up. Find more of these positions, adapt and note them to be reserve positions. Multiple of these keep the attacker more in guessing for enemy snipers ect.

Make use of fake positions like unoccupied FH´s and trench segments at reasonable places. Maybe some suspicious terrain alterations do the same trick. All these were/are RL techniques used by all sides in prepared defense situations, so can be used in our games alike. B)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, RockinHarry said:

the concerning unit/formation will be restricted in movement away from the previously set HQ objective, particularly when out of control range for units not in contact with their immediate HQ. It´s a bit abstracted by use of HQ command points, but does the purpose very very well IMO.

Make combat squads leaders of the 0 or minus type (independent from experience and other soft data) and focus more on Qty. raised for the Plt. and Coy leaders, 

HQ/leader groups could also be assigned considerably more points for unit objective, when destroyed or receiving losses.

Interesting stuff and fairly easy to implement.  Would just need to see what the results were in an actual game. 

I have found the plotting out of an axis of advance (created with a Paused unit & a line of movement waypoints) along with a command radius (created with a 360o Target Arc on the Platoon HQs) works fairly well when also combined with other house rules.  Below is a link to some screenshots where the rules were used in a scenario.  The axis of advance lines are a bit difficult to see because of the early morning partial darkness.  

http://community.battlefront.com/topic/133371-new-scenario-assault-on-port-cros/?do=findComment&comment=1776506

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, MOS:96B2P said:

I have found the plotting out of an axis of advance (created with a Paused unit & a line of movement waypoints) along with a command radius (created with a 360o Target Arc on the Platoon HQs) works fairly well when also combined with other house rules.  Below is a link to some screenshots where the rules were used in a scenario.  The axis of advance lines are a bit difficult to see because of the early morning partial darkness.  

http://community.battlefront.com/topic/133371-new-scenario-assault-on-port-cros/?do=findComment&comment=1776506

nice and creative way for such situations! B)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, RockinHarry said:

Sniper effectivity can be very restricted in bocage and other close cover terrain. Well prepared german defenses as was the St. Lo area, usually were improved by adapting the terrain towards the enemy by means of removing brush, trees or even houses to get better and deeper lines of fire. Too some extend this can be simulated on our CM maps as well, by determining halfway good friendly sniper positions and then adapt the map towards the desired kill zones in enemy approach lanes, preferably from a flank. 

Excellent advice again, saving me a lot of playtesting, many thanks.

With no disrespect to the GIs, as they say, history is written by the victors.  Yet the American AAR forensics on le Carillon et al. also betray a distinct admiration for the formidable German defences in the le Carillon sector, successfully held for nearly a month by critically undersupplied and undermanned regiments heavily staffed with unreliable Ostruppe. And even when the breakout came in July, a single battalion of 897 Grenadiere still took down almost a quarter of the trench strength of the newly committed 137th US infantry.

Which is what drew me instantly to this series upon initial release of CMBN. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/4/2019 at 2:15 PM, LongLeftFlank said:

action of June 17th 1944, incompletely clearing a small town of 25 odd structures took half a fresh US battalion with ample artillery a *full day* (0530-1845) to accomplish

 

On 3/4/2019 at 2:15 PM, LongLeftFlank said:

The still green GIs advance cautiously from house to house, wary of mines, traps, snipers and the rrrrrrrrrip of Spandaus. Frequent stonks of mortars or "88s" cause them to scatter for cover. The doughs can't see Jerry, can't silence the incoming. But hour by hour, the stretchers keep coming back while frustration and exhaustion set in. What's the solution? Call the guns! But onto what? More time goes by.

.... So, how do I put that into a scenario?

Maybe ask players to honour a house rule to only ever use "hunt", "move" and "slow" commands when moving towards enemy lines, if there's no friendly unit further ahead.

A big part of why I'm able to clear a map fast in CM is that I use scout teams to run through hundreds of metres of potential danger areas at top speed, quickly sorting the map into "danger" and "no danger" areas.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...
On 3/4/2019 at 10:19 PM, RockinHarry said:

Germans surely had registered the area meticulously for all their guns and heavy weapons for quick and resolute actions. If germans is meant to be played by the AIP this could be somewhat difficult to pull off with map and orders. Couple of TRP´s are required, at least 300m far from occupied german lines (if medium mortars) and these also need (several) german FO´s having LOS to these TRP´s. Similar with other heavy weapons (HMG) and Pak maybe. This makes the AIP react with quick response Arty. better and more reiliably, so when setting up german positions this all needs considered and synchronized.

Attacking US player needs taking this into consideration as well, having to watch out for possible german FO´s positions and deal with them by blindly engaging them (area fire), or smoke barrage usage. Wind strength and direction setting for the mission should be considered and adapted as necessary. No use for smoke, if the wind blows in strength and the wrong way.

So after another year long work hiatus, I'm back online, doing some design and playtesting on this project. But I am having an absolute bugga of a time getting the AI German spotters to call fire on their TRPs.

Disrupting the advance of the green Amis with a steady rain of 81mm harassing fire (and some ranged MG and sniping, plus a few mines) is the key to the German defence scheme. They simply lack the bayonet strength to go toe-to-toe. That was exactly the RL dynamic, and the battered 352nd Division made it work well for a month north of St Lo.

... At least one spotter now has LOS to each TRP, usually keyholed (tricky enough to do in the bocage/ village terrain), but none of them will draw a bead and start plotting a fire mission. Unless the Yanks obligingly sit on the TRPs for about 10 minutes, waving.

Any ideas here? Many thanks. 13 years in, the CM2 game engine remains unique, but in design mode I keep feeling like I'm fighting it over seemingly simple things that take forever to tweak.

Note:  The "Support Targets" AI command brings in far too intensive a barrage, even when spread over a wide area. I really want localized stonks, tied to the US axes of advance. The RL Germans had this entire area registered and under good observation from church towers and the Carillon heights. It was a school solution to their infantry shortage.

One idea I'll be trying: more solo (50%) spotters, hidden closer to the TRPs (broader LOS of the zone). Has this worked for anyone else, or do they just get shot?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, LongLeftFlank said:

Note:  The "Support Targets" AI command brings in far too intensive a barrage, even when spread over a wide area. I really want localized stonks, tied to the US axes of advance. 

One idea I'll be trying: more solo (50%) spotters, hidden closer to the TRPs (broader LOS of the zone). Has this worked for anyone else, or do they just get shot?

For stonks I often have off map medium mortars with low ammo arrive as reinforcements about every 15 minutes or so.  They can't get to intense because the mortars are only medium and they run out of ammo. 

If AI units are to close to the targeted area they may not call in fire.  The AIs version of danger close.  I would leave the FO teams intact at a safe distance with Elite experience and +2 Leader.   

 

31 minutes ago, LongLeftFlank said:

So after another year long work hiatus, I'm back online, doing some design and playtesting on this project. But I am having an absolute bugga of a time getting the AI German spotters to call fire on their TRPs.

Any ideas here? Many thanks. 13 years in, the CM2 game engine remains unique, but in design mode I keep feeling like I'm fighting it over seemingly simple things that take forever to tweak.

Below are from some scenario design notes I have reference mortars / artillery that may be of interest.  The first paragraph is a paraphrase of something @RockinHarry posted in 2016.

The more AI TRPs the better. The AI adheres to usual C2 restrictions, meaning that any spotter needs to be in chain of command AND is allowed to access a particular Arty or mortar asset. The AI is no different in this regard as a human player. Also the FO´s and artillery unit’s soft factors matter, meaning higher quality units respond, spot and shoot better. AI TRP´s should be placed with security stand-off ranges as the AI won´t risk targeting areas that are too close to friendly units. From my observations the AI uses point, area and line, but never smoke missions. I think the AI uses short duration destructive fires.

 

This next one is a paraphrase of something @nik mond posted in 2018.  This may be a trick you've not heard of.

You can trigger AI on map mortars to start firing at an objective once the enemy occupies it.                

1. Paint a terrain objective on top of the occupy objective the human player needs to take, but make this one an "AI trigger enemy" location.                                                                                                                                                 

2. In the AI plan have your mortars set up some place and then set the "next" move order on exactly the same tiles as the previous location except add a "Ctrl L click" (AI Area Fire) for the target location tiles which will be on the occupy objective. Important: make that "next" move order "wait for" invoked by that "AI trigger enemy" you made. Set time from 0:00 to end of battle. Now when the enemy moves to the objective location they get mortared.                                          

-if an AI FO calls a fire mission from the mortars it over-rides the target trigger until the duration of the mission is over (usually short) and then it resumes the trigger bombardment.

-The mortars never pack up from one move to another if the movement locations are drawn on top of each other exactly on the same tiles. So when the "order 2" which is that "AI trigger enemy" is invoked they start firing right away. -you can ctrl L click (AI Area Fire) multiple target tiles and the mortars will sweep, fire at one tile, then the next etc.

-line of sight not required.

Good luck!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Think @LongLeftFlank is still at V 3.0? AIP scripted area fire targeting requires V4.+ IIRC. It worked fairly well for me in a US AIP attacking mission some time ago. (LINK)

Stand-off or security range most likely is still key for AIP defensive ARTY missions to work properly. As mentioned further above medium guns (105mm +) require something like 300m minimum. For german 81 or 50mm it might be shorter, but haven´t tested in detail yet. In a current test setup with a US AIP attacking in urban terrain I found the US 60mm mortars are used at ranges between 100 to 200m (from forward friendlies), if a potential calling unit has both LOS and available TRP in desired area. Off cause C2 link required.

For a defending german AIP I´d guess security range for medium mortars might be at 200-300m. Maybe somewhat less. I´d likely add german obsolete 50mm mortars to the mix which I think have the least possible restrictions re security range.

In order to give the AIP a helping hand I don´t hesitate to add a very high amount of TRP´s, as well as allowing full intel on the human players assets. Think I´d go as far as cheating on the human player by reinforce inserting an AIP  FO in his rear area at appropiate time and places. This practice wasn´t that uncommon in WW2 anyway (leaving behind a FO to cause trouble in the enemies rear area), at least for germans and russians.

The AIP oftenly is somewhat hesitant due to available ammo. This counts the more for onboard mortars and guns which have little when compared to offboard assets. Think there´s some trucks with extra 81mm mortar ammo in german motorized Inf formations, which can be "unloaded" in editor. Usually any unloaded ammo dump gets combined into a single large one when part of a single formation initially. Buying multiple formations gets this solved usually. Wished BFC would add these (mortar ammo) to the supply truck formations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Correct. I am at 3.0 as I don't want the agita of 4.0.

The German fire support is 81mm and 75mm, and the FOs are far enough away; as noted, they will eventually call fire if the Amis sit on the TRPs for a while.

So my current guess is that they're so keyholed they can't see what's going on in the vicinity of the TRP zone, I think someone said 20m? Ergo, they don't 'realize' there are stonk-worthy forces there....

Edited by LongLeftFlank
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, LongLeftFlank said:

Correct. I am at 3.0 as I don't want the agita of 4.0.

The German fire support is 81mm and 75mm, and the FOs are far enough away; as noted, they will eventually call fire if the Amis sit on the TRPs for a while.

So my current guess is that they're so keyholed they can't see what's going on in the vicinity of the TRP zone, I think someone said 20m? Ergo, they don't 'realize' there are stonk-worthy forces there....

Yes, you mentioned in evade thread. V4 would give you further options but I understand the hesitancy (evade-bocage stuff and other annoyances)

I´ll add some related tests in my WIP mission and see if I can figure out more. Thinking of making human player units more attractive (for receiving stonks) by adding high point values to target groups. But not even sure the AIP gives a f... on the various parms as set by mission designers. Guess unit values are a fixed set determined by various factors as shown in QB purchase menu (soft factors + threat level). But worth a try maybe.

Improving the AIP´s response times might help too. All FO and mortars "elite" and +2 leaders and in reliable C2 network i.e. "Reliable" in relation to what the human player can and will do to disrupt it off course.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, LongLeftFlank said:

OK, daylight is a good part of my spotter problem. The historical attack begins at 0645 (Overcast). When I push it forward to 0930, I do get spots and the kind of shelling I was looking for. Many thanks gents, for the useful pointers! 

Good you got it working. 

Need to revise some my statements re stand-off or security range for AIP. Some more standardized testing (CMBN V4.02) revealed there´s likely no something like this. At least it all seems more dynamic and complicated. However, I got a german AIP using its assets at ranges as close as ~50m to its forward friendly lines (didn´t test any closer). This at almost perfect environmental condition (clear sky, daylight and opponent remaining static in little cover). Even at 50m it´ll use 150mm howitzers if it sees fit. Same for 105mm offboard Arty and 81mm mortars (onboard). But this involves the risk of some friendly fire falling on the line. Not so good in case of 150mm and airbursts. This can be single stray rounds but also an overlapping on friendly positions area target. The latter seems odd, but `ve seen the AIP doing it several times with 81mm onboard mortars.

In less than perfect condition (enemy on the move, insuffcient intel, good cover/concealment etc) the AIP surely is more hesitant and not using assets that effectively. Main point IMO still remains good LOS to a TRP and surrounding area, as well as highQ spotter and Arty. Unfortunately scenario author mode doesn´t give any further hints on AIP´s decisions, except type of Arty mission used and assets (when onboard). No info on a FO´s spotting and LOS quality (off course). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As noted above, this scenario is compressing a full day (0530 to 1945) historical small town clearing action (by a green unit under fire) into a single hour of CMBN gameplay. It gets rather dull if it runs longer - yes, I do care about my players. So I'll need to go with an 'average' daylight condition.

This is a pity, since most of the point of attacking at dawn is to take advantage of low (but not disorienting) visibility while advancing to contact. Just as dusk can be a good time for a brief push / counterattack to secure positions for the night.

But, ya can't have everything. And a 'speed up the day relative to the clock option' (a la the original version of Morrowind/Skyrim lol), or else dynamic weather (mist lifting, rain ending) to simulate the visibility changes is a ways down my CM wishlist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...