Additional fortifications?

[WhiteWolf65]

Good morning,

One type of fortification that I have noticed that is missing from the Combat Mission titles dealing with World War II are weapon pits. I know that they are in CMSF 2. How hard would it be to include them in a future patch and/or expansion for the World War II Combat Mission titles? We all know that these were common with the German units, especially during the drive through Belgium after the Bulge and the assault on the Sigfried Line (especially around Aachen). As a matter of fact, the Allies encountered them in Normandy as well (remember Easy Company attacking that line of German 105s that were dug-in). Just my early morning brain at work.

**Chris**

[WhiteWolf65]

Add camouflage netting and you'd really have a difficult position to attack. Again, just my early morning brain at work. 

[Aragorn2002]

10 minutes ago, WhiteWolf65 said:

Add camouflage netting and you'd really have a difficult position to attack. Again, just my early morning brain at work. 

My early morning brain does other things, but a good suggestion.

[WhiteWolf65]

39 minutes ago, Aragorn2002 said:

My early morning brain does other things, but a good suggestion.

Same here. It is amazing that my two functioning brain cells even work at this time of the morning, 4:06 EST.

[Kaunitz]

I believe the problem is the same as for the other fortifications? It seems to be impossible to make features sink into the ground/terrain mesh. Take a look at the current trenches: they protrude from the ground, which of course, is not how they're supposed to work. In my opinion, fortifications are really the one major thing that is not handled well by Combat Mission games, and it makes infantry die like flies, especially to indirect fire and direct HE fire. While the mechanics do work as you'd expect, with ground stopping shrapnel effects, any attempt to recreate foritifcations by messing with elevations is rather futile, as the action spots come at a size of 8x8 meters (a depression of such a big size does not offer protection from arty), can't be camouflaged and also the troopers' placement within the depression is a roll of dice.

Ideally, dugouts/trenches/pits should have these characteristics: 

1) They should not be visible for the opponent in the terrain/ground mesh and have an excellent "hiding value" themselves, so that they're only discovered when you're right on them.

2) They should increase the hiding-value for units positioned in them (i.e. provide concealment).

3) They should be deep and narrow with sharp edges. The width of the trench is directly linked to the protection it provides against indirect fire. Every meter counts.

4) Troops inside the trench should position themselves in a way that exposes them as little as possible (head + raised weapon), while at the same time gives them good lines of sight (assuming that the surrounding terrain is flat...). 

Edited May 29, 2019 by Kaunitz

[A Canadian Cat]

5 hours ago, WhiteWolf65 said:

One type of fortification that I have noticed that is missing from the Combat Mission titles dealing with World War II are weapon pits. I know that they are in CMSF 2.

? CMSF has the same fortification as the other titles. They do have the old terrain modifying trench - for backwards compatibility but everything else is the same. What are these weapons's pits you speak of?

[A Canadian Cat]

1 hour ago, Kaunitz said:

I believe the problem is the same as for the other fortifications? It seems to be impossible to make features sink into the ground/terrain mesh. Take a look at the current trenches: they protrude from the ground, which of course, is not how they're supposed to work. In my opinion, fortifications are really the one major thing that is not handled well by Combat Mission games...

The current trenches and fox holes do not protrude into the mesh for reason #1 you state below - to preserve the FOW. This is a game engine limitation since all map features are visible to everyone at all times. You know this - I'm just making sure anyone who doesn't is on the same page. The capabilities of them is supposed to be modelled like they *are* dug into the terrain mesh. While many feel they don't offer enough protection I am unconvinced of that.

 

1 hour ago, Kaunitz said:

Ideally, dugouts/trenches/pits should have these characteristics: 

1) They should not be visible for the opponent in the terrain/ground mesh and have an excellent "hiding value" themselves, so that they're only discovered when you're right on them.

I'm torn by this. Probably ideally there should be levels of trench works since just digging a while in a so so location would not really give you much stealthiness while a good position with some camo could be, as you say, something very hard to see.

 

1 hour ago, Kaunitz said:

2) They should increase the hiding-value for units positioned in them (i.e. provide concealment).

I think they do though. While I have not done extensive testing typically you don't see soldiers in trenches and foxholes until they start shooting at you or you have a good view of the fortification system.

 

1 hour ago, Kaunitz said:

3) They should be deep and narrow with sharp edges. The width of the trench is directly linked to the protection it provides against indirect fire. Every meter counts.

Yeah that would be awesome.

 

1 hour ago, Kaunitz said:

4) Troops inside the trench should position themselves in a way that exposes them as little as possible (head + raised weapon), while at the same time gives them good lines of sight (assuming that the surrounding terrain is flat...). 

Sure, also true. And they do now. I know it doesn't look like that but the extra protection they offer is significant. Compare the casualties of men in the open - there is a significant difference. Also if you hide troops in fortifications they are totally protected from direct fire and only a direct in the slit HE shell will cause any casualites.

I know there are / were stronger fortifications that could be constructed that those modelled in the game but the ones we have are pretty good for a rage of them. IMHO

[RockinHarry]

7 hours ago, Kaunitz said:

I believe the problem is the same as for the other fortifications? It seems to be impossible to make features sink into the ground/terrain mesh. Take a look at the current trenches: they protrude from the ground, which of course, is not how they're supposed to work. In my opinion, fortifications are really the one major thing that is not handled well by Combat Mission games, and it makes infantry die like flies, especially to indirect fire and direct HE fire. While the mechanics do work as you'd expect, with ground stopping shrapnel effects, any attempt to recreate foritifcations by messing with elevations is rather futile, as the action spots come at a size of 8x8 meters (a depression of such a big size does not offer protection from arty), can't be camouflaged and also the troopers' placement within the depression is a roll of dice.

Ideally, dugouts/trenches/pits should have these characteristics: 

1) They should not be visible for the opponent in the terrain/ground mesh and have an excellent "hiding value" themselves, so that they're only discovered when you're right on them.

2) They should increase the hiding-value for units positioned in them (i.e. provide concealment).

3) They should be deep and narrow with sharp edges. The width of the trench is directly linked to the protection it provides against indirect fire. Every meter counts.

4) Troops inside the trench should position themselves in a way that exposes them as little as possible (head + raised weapon), while at the same time gives them good lines of sight (assuming that the surrounding terrain is flat...). 

Kaunitz, not something for you?

http://i68.tinypic.com/29ynurl.jpg

even if just beeing an expedient (and I agree with all you said above) I found this working fairly well, vs.an AIP in particular.

you might be interested to look here as well. http://community.battlefront.com/topic/121337-rockinharry-scenario-thread/page/2/

[Kaunitz]

I still don't believe in trenches. Here is a short test video to back up my opinion: 

Explanation: I set up 27 guys in some trenches (which had a bit of zig-zag in them to stop shrapnel?). Originally, I wanted to test different calibres of arty. But after testing the 81mm mortars, I felt there was no need to continue the test with heavier calibres. Admittedly, I placed the target for the 2x2 mortars perfectly on the trenches, and I set the strength and duration of the fire mission to "max" (but this would only speed things up). The first test in the video demonstrates what happened to units who had no orders to remain prone ("hide"), but instead kneeled: Out of the 27 men, 21 were casualties, only 6 survived. Many of the casualties were inflicted by the buggy "run to the crater" behaviour: In the middle of the artillery barrage, troopers leave the trenches to seek cover in craters. But as I zoom in, you can see that most casualties were still inflicted in the trench itself. The second test in the video uses the same setup (27 men in trenches versus 4 81mm mortars). Results were almost the same - 19 casualties, 8 survivors. 

 

(video will be available shortly)

No, I don't believe that trenches are working properly. The trench is by far too wide. When hit by artillery, it's only a matter of a few seconds before the shells hit right into the trenches. Therefore, the currently available trenches offers almost no protection against artillery (which ought to be their primary purpose).  

 

@RockinHarry

Hehe, the trench looks nice. I came up with something very similar for my Gerbini map (picture: http://community.battlefront.com/topic/125278-highlanders-the-battle-of-gerbini/?do=findComment&comment=1747980). But the problems described above in my short test still remained.

I'm curious about that scenario of yours, given that you also seem to pay a lot of attention to defensive works. I'm really tempted to buy CM:BN for it. ...

 

[MikeyD]

Its been awhile since I looked at it, but I recall having men in 'fighting posture' in trenches increase their risk compared 'hiding' on their bellies in trenches. Pixeltruppen exposing themselves to use their weapons skews the results.

I just now did a mini-test in CMS2., 'Trenches vs Ditches' with a platoon in each. Once with men in 'fighting' pose, once 'hiding'. The results - Trenches and in-ground ditches had similar results. Nothing's going to save you when BM-21 artillery rockets are saturation firing your position and a rocket lands directly on top of you! But, aside from that, if you're 'hiding' at the bottom of a trench your risk of light shrapnel wounds appear to be reduced.

Now that I think of it, I used US troops wearing body armor, which might've skewed the test. I should play Red v Red and see how Syrians weather the storm.

Edited May 29, 2019 by MikeyD

[RockinHarry]

1 hour ago, Kaunitz said:

I still don't believe in trenches. Here is a short test video to back up my opinion: 

Explanation: I set up 27 guys in some trenches (which had a bit of zig-zag in them to stop shrapnel?). Originally, I wanted to test different calibres of arty. But after testing the 81mm mortars, I felt there was no need to continue the test with heavier calibres. Admittedly, I placed the target for the 2x2 mortars perfectly on the trenches, and I set the strength and duration of the fire mission to "max" (but this would only speed things up). The first test in the video demonstrates what happened to units who had no orders to remain prone ("hide"), but instead kneeled: Out of the 27 men, 21 were casualties, only 6 survived. Many of the casualties were inflicted by the buggy "run to the crater" behaviour: In the middle of the artillery barrage, troopers leave the trenches to seek cover in craters. But as I zoom in, you can see that most casualties were still inflicted in the trench itself. The second test in the video uses the same setup (27 men in trenches versus 4 81mm mortars). Results were almost the same - 19 casualties, 8 survivors. 

 

(video will be available shortly)

No, I don't believe that trenches are working properly. The trench is by far too wide. When hit by artillery, it's only a matter of a few seconds before the shells hit right into the trenches. Therefore, the currently available trenches offers almost no protection against artillery (which ought to be their primary purpose).  

 

@RockinHarry

Hehe, the trench looks nice. I came up with something very similar for my Gerbini map (picture: http://community.battlefront.com/topic/125278-highlanders-the-battle-of-gerbini/?do=findComment&comment=1747980). But the problems described above in my short test still remained.

I'm curious about that scenario of yours, given that you also seem to pay a lot of attention to defensive works. I'm really tempted to buy CM:BN for it. ...

 

Kaunitz, I do not believe in trenches (and foxholes) either. First class death traps they are. The burying of trenches (and FHs) a notch deeper (1-2m) at least makes maps look somewhat nicer and also do protect vs. direct fire bits more (chances are higher, that the 3D terrain mesh is beeing hit and not the trench/FH and occupants).

Trenches have been discussed in exhaustion before. They´re surely meant to just present the shallow types and not deep protective slit trenches. The latter would be the ones to give really good protection in RL vs. anything, unless directly beeing hit off course.

With regard to craters I presume that BFC has a good reason to leave it this way and not "fix" it. Maybe someone sugested that it was a valid tactic to jump out of the holes and trenches into next crater as likelyhood of yet another hit on same crater pos is very very unlikely. Was surely done in WW1 and WW2 at times at appropiate conditions but it´s a sad story that craters are considered better "cover" than man made works in the games.

Edited May 29, 2019 by RockinHarry

[RockinHarry]

1 hour ago, MikeyD said:

Its been awhile since I looked at it, but I recall having men in 'fighting posture' in trenches increase their risk compared 'hiding' on their bellies in trenches. Pixeltruppen exposing themselves to use their weapons skews the results.

I just now did a mini-test in CMS2., 'Trenches vs Ditches' with a platoon in each. Once with men in 'fighting' pose, once 'hiding'. The results - Trenches and in-ground ditches had similar results. Nothing's going to save you when BM-21 artillery rockets are saturation firing your position and a rocket lands directly on top of you! But, aside from that, if you're 'hiding' at the bottom of a trench your risk of light shrapnel wounds appear to be reduced.

Now that I think of it, I used US troops wearing body armor, which might've skewed the test. I should play Red v Red and see how Syrians weather the storm.

You mean -1 (blue) ditch locked AS? I´d guess the same that there shouldn´t be much of a difference between protective values for both, ditches and trenches. Also both are unreliable with regard to single pixeltroopers using the available "cover" appropiately well. Oftentimes they are senselessly moving around, do weapon reloads in inapropiate stances (that the main reason for some my animation mods), or getting killed by other stupid single actions.

 

Edited May 29, 2019 by RockinHarry

[RockinHarry]

9 hours ago, Kaunitz said:

 

@RockinHarry

Hehe, the trench looks nice. I came up with something very similar for my Gerbini map (picture: http://community.battlefront.com/topic/125278-highlanders-the-battle-of-gerbini/?do=findComment&comment=1747980). But the problems described above in my short test still remained.

I'm curious about that scenario of yours, given that you also seem to pay a lot of attention to defensive works. I'm really tempted to buy CM:BN for it. ...

 

forgot to reply in more detail here. With the given tools any map maker surely comes to the same (limited) solutions for getting things improved sooner or later. Can´t try your Gerbini mission as well, as I don´t own CMFI unfortunately. Would be next after CMRT I think (or CMSF2).

I mainly use the forts and associated micro terrain alterations vs. AIP only. The AIP isn´t aware of the artificial trenches, created when the game engine adapts the terrain mesh after mission start. So there´s no concerns for FOW matters as the AIP hasn´t any awareness on this at all unlike human players who can identify "suspicious" map areas instantly. But there´s "Solutions" for H2H players as well.

As said, solely relying on trenchworks vs. artillery/mortars very rarely works. But to reflect elaborate defenses, one needs to redo appropiate WW1 and WW2 defense techniques like using log shelters as dugouts and such. These can be buried as well and thus beeing a more or less safe from direct fire place for infantry. Too bad that one can´t script embark/disembark for shelters in more detail when in AIP´s hands.

[Kaunitz]

I really hope we will see some improvement in regards to defensive features at some point in the future. But somehow I doubt it, given that many people don't seem to have any problem with it. I wonder whether this may also be linked to the preference of Meeting Engagements in H2H games? I rarely ever see people pick fortifications anyway.

The fact that infantry dies like flies despite all your best, terrain-fiddly efforts to work around the problem is becoming a major deal breaker for me personally. It sucks the enthusiasm right out of me when it comes to map-creation. Infantry simply depends on using the protection provided by terrain. In CM, protection by terrain doesn't work that well as there is a lack of properly working defensive structures and issues with soldier placement (make good use of cover without completely ignoring LOS), which I understand must be a pain in the **** to code. This lack of staying power for infantry makes it quite hard to simulate real engagements. 

Sometimes I wished we could just paint abstract levels of "small arms + shrapnel protection for infantry" areas on selected action-squares of the map (directional would be ideal...). I'm a big fan of the ballistic model in the game, but I think it reaches its limits when every single cm counts, which is the case if we're talking about cover for infantry. Elevating or depressing 8x8m areas is not a sufficient mean to create cover for infantry and is also extremely fiddly and unreliable. The implementation "abstract protection modifiers" would just swipe away all the fiddlyness with one god-sent blow. No more worrying about unreliable soldier placement, no more worrying about overexposed soldiers (also: soldiers deciding switch from prone to kneel every now and then...), no more worrying about lack of LOS if the soldiers are not overexposed.

/rant mode off

Edited May 31, 2019 by Kaunitz

[Zveroboy1]

It is not that people don't care, but at this point in the life of the game it is doubtful that anything will be done about it. Either because Battlefront doesn't think there is a problem or simply because it is a game engine limitation (trenches not sunk into the mesh of the map which results in soldiers being too exposed) and finding a workaround is too much work or not a priority. It could also be that if they somehow fixed this, it would mess too much with the balance of existing scenarios but then again that hasn't stopped Battlefront from beefing up mgs so probably not the main reason.

I wonder if you have played CM1. Because the offence/defence paradigm was completely different.  A lot of people either didn't play CM1 or have forgotten how it was like. Some will say it is the rose tinted glasses of nostalgia but it wasn't that long ago that I stopped playing CM1, 4 or 5 years tops. I didn't bother to reinstall it when I got this PC. But I distinctly remember the defence being A LOT tougher and resilient. A combination of leaders with morale bonus, stealthier shooters (you had to get much closer to get IDs on enemies and the position of the contact markers was a lot less accurate) and much stronger trenches and foxholes made it so you couldn't just have the defenders melt away under fire once you reach fire superiority. They would stop returning fire almost completely when suppressed enough and only sporadically shoot at the attacker but they would often stay put and you had to flank the trench line or assault it with grenades if you didn't have tanks or HE available.

I know that's not what fans of the game want to hear because they'd like to think that since CM2 is newer it is automatically better in every aspect. But it isn't so as far as I am concerned. The defence has become a lot weaker and there is less need for maneuvering when attacking entrenched enemies. It is still the best tactical squad level game on the market mind you and CM2 has tons of improvements, not least in the eye candy department but fortifications are definitely a weak point.

And yes part of the problem is the full soldiers representation and ballistic model that replaced abstract squads with not all soldiers displayed. It opened a huge can of worms and gives less room for fudging probably. Now of course most of the kinks have been ironed out and the game is really solid. Of course it would be hard to get back to the crude graphics of CM1 but nevertheless it had a couple of things it did better than the current game in my opinion.

But it feels like I have typed almost the same rant half a year ago so at the end of the day you have to accept the few flaws of the game. It is still enjoyable. Anyway you're not the only one who has a gripe with fortifications.

 

[RockinHarry]

7 hours ago, Kaunitz said:

I really hope we will see some improvement in regards to defensive features at some point in the future. But somehow I doubt it, given that many people don't seem to have any problem with it. I wonder whether this may also be linked to the preference of Meeting Engagements in H2H games? I rarely ever see people pick fortifications anyway.

Oh... I remember quite a lot of players and designers alike muttering about the limited value of the forts in the game. No idea on preference on H2H/ME though.

 

7 hours ago, Kaunitz said:

The fact that infantry dies like flies despite all your best, terrain-fiddly efforts to work around the problem is becoming a major deal breaker for me personally. It sucks the enthusiasm right out of me when it comes to map-creation. Infantry simply depends on using the protection provided by terrain. In CM, protection by terrain doesn't work that well as there is a lack of properly working defensive structures and issues with soldier placement (make good use of cover without completely ignoring LOS), which I understand must be a pain in the **** to code. This lack of staying power for infantry makes it quite hard to simulate real engagements. 

I guess you didn´t have discovered my animation mod files yet? It´s not that oftenly the terrain that makes ptroopers die like flies, it´s also quite often some the inappropiate single ptroopers behaviors when it comes to stances and show a quite unnecessary target to the enemy! Have a look here, just in case:

 

7 hours ago, Kaunitz said:

Sometimes I wished we could just paint abstract levels of "small arms + shrapnel protection for infantry" areas on selected action-squares of the map (directional would be ideal...). I'm a big fan of the ballistic model in the game, but I think it reaches its limits when every single cm counts, which is the case if we're talking about cover for infantry. Elevating or depressing 8x8m areas is not a sufficient mean to create cover for infantry and is also extremely fiddly and unreliable. The implementation "abstract protection modifiers" would just swipe away all the fiddlyness with one god-sent blow. No more worrying about unreliable soldier placement, no more worrying about overexposed soldiers (also: soldiers deciding switch from prone to kneel every now and then...), no more worrying about lack of LOS if the soldiers are not overexposed.

/rant mode off

Think BFC had to make some trade offs for the various ptroopers behaviors, also related to their particular roles within a squad/team. They got to observe, shoot, get into cover, move, maintain C2, all that the same time, ever evaluating against possible threats and their own relation to them. I don´t want to be a coder in BFC team and I gladly have no coding skills at all.

[Panzer_Freak]

When i did a test with foxholes and placed 10 AT-crews in different kind of terrain and called for one fire mission (short) with 4x 10,5 cm howitsers. The first test with out foxholes next one with foxholes. I did not save the protocol I made unfortunatly, but it needs more testing then just 10 if do a proper examination. I did notice difference in casualty, abonded ATG and wounded. And when I have used foxholes in games it feels like it do make a slight different. Foxholes are not that expensive and if I have some extra after I am satisfied with my battle group I often purchase some for ATG, AA and other key weapons.

[MikeyD]

Oftentimes tests are performed that appear somewhat  skewed by the fact the nobody was particularly likely to survive the conditions the troops got placed in, anyway. You're measuring the difference between 80% chance of dying vs 75% chance of dying. Stuff like tank fire into upper floors of buildings, artillery strikes directly on top of your units, even infantry close-assaulting some dude holding an automatic pistol! To (mis)quote an old Henny Youngman joke "Doc, it hurts when I do this" (raises his arm). Doc: "Then don't Do that!!!"

[DougPhresh]

How does Graviteam do trenches and weapons pits without the change to mesh changing LOS?

[RockinHarry]

Good question on Graviteam ways on doing the mesh alterations. Haven´t launched it (GTOS) for very long time but I´d guess they somehow "bake" integrate their foxholes and trenches maybe at a higher resolution into the base ground mesh. If they´re using the eyeballing method between units and stuff i don´t know. Another method I know of is in the ARMA/Iron Front 1944 FPS games. They use seperate 3D objects for foxholes and trench segments that then can be fix-placed individually into prepared depressions or pits in the base maps ground mesh. Quite similar to what can be done in CMX2 by using ditch locked tiles. Can´t recall on FOW and spotting on these objects ingame though.

Since weapon pits were mentioned here I found ditch locking AS in various variations works fairly well for protected placing i.e of guns or vehicles. I´d created some nice 88mm position where the gun and crew fit fairly nicely into a full AS -1m depression and bits of surrounded by 1m high berms. I could fine tune the depth of the pit by placing a X or + shaped cross section of foot path into the same AS. Final result was that the guns silhouette was fairly low when compared to flat on the gound and the gun tube was just high enough to enable shooting flat above ground level. Bits of trickier for PAK/AT-guns for their generally lower silhouettes and terrain height/ditch lock of +-1m does not allow much headroom for protection and same time preserve ability to shoot out of this position.

[Bozowans]

On 5/31/2019 at 5:11 AM, Zveroboy1 said:

It is not that people don't care, but at this point in the life of the game it is doubtful that anything will be done about it. Either because Battlefront doesn't think there is a problem or simply because it is a game engine limitation (trenches not sunk into the mesh of the map which results in soldiers being too exposed) and finding a workaround is too much work or not a priority. It could also be that if they somehow fixed this, it would mess too much with the balance of existing scenarios but then again that hasn't stopped Battlefront from beefing up mgs so probably not the main reason.

I wonder if you have played CM1. Because the offence/defence paradigm was completely different.  A lot of people either didn't play CM1 or have forgotten how it was like. Some will say it is the rose tinted glasses of nostalgia but it wasn't that long ago that I stopped playing CM1, 4 or 5 years tops. I didn't bother to reinstall it when I got this PC. But I distinctly remember the defence being A LOT tougher and resilient. A combination of leaders with morale bonus, stealthier shooters (you had to get much closer to get IDs on enemies and the position of the contact markers was a lot less accurate) and much stronger trenches and foxholes made it so you couldn't just have the defenders melt away under fire once you reach fire superiority. They would stop returning fire almost completely when suppressed enough and only sporadically shoot at the attacker but they would often stay put and you had to flank the trench line or assault it with grenades if you didn't have tanks or HE available.

I know that's not what fans of the game want to hear because they'd like to think that since CM2 is newer it is automatically better in every aspect. But it isn't so as far as I am concerned. The defence has become a lot weaker and there is less need for maneuvering when attacking entrenched enemies. It is still the best tactical squad level game on the market mind you and CM2 has tons of improvements, not least in the eye candy department but fortifications are definitely a weak point.

And yes part of the problem is the full soldiers representation and ballistic model that replaced abstract squads with not all soldiers displayed. It opened a huge can of worms and gives less room for fudging probably. Now of course most of the kinks have been ironed out and the game is really solid. Of course it would be hard to get back to the crude graphics of CM1 but nevertheless it had a couple of things it did better than the current game in my opinion.

But it feels like I have typed almost the same rant half a year ago so at the end of the day you have to accept the few flaws of the game. It is still enjoyable. Anyway you're not the only one who has a gripe with fortifications.

 

Yeah I agree with this 100%. I played some CM1 scenarios not that long ago and it was interesting to see how different it was. It's not just the fortifications either. Troops in moderate or light cover like trees and bushes can be very resilient against even direct HE fire from tanks. In CM2 by comparison, it's not that uncommon to see entire bunched-up squads get vaporized by a single tank shell. CM2 is just much deadlier all across the board, while CM1 is so abstracted that you get casualties very slowly building up over a long period of time.

I've felt for a long time that the CM2 engine works better in the modern war setting than it does for WW2. The CM2 engine did start with Shock Force after all. The extreme deadliness of the weapons, the higher degree of control you have over your troops, the high casualties and even the higher numbers of KIA compared to WIA all fit with the modern setting better than WW2.

Even that "infantry running away from artillery" behavior that everyone complained about until the recent patch was more appropriate for the modern setting. If there is artillery or HE fire hitting near my infantry in Black Sea, I would WANT them to run away ASAP because chances are they are gonna get turned into meat paste within the next couple of minutes regardless of whether they're in cover or not. Infantry squads are smaller and more spread out in the modern setting too so it makes more sense for them to move around. In the WW2 games though, it makes no sense for a huge line of dozens of infantry to immediately abandon a long trench line and run away just because some mortars start hitting.

[MikeyD]

A lot of problems with trenches in the game can be attributed to 'user error'. I mean there's often a lack of well  thought out 'fortification' planning, no overlapping fields of fire, no layered defenses,  no obstacles, barbed wire or mine fields employed. Its often just some unlucky dudes sitting in a short line of trench in the middle of a field like shooting range targets. There's also a matter of scale. The more geography your trench/bunker system covers the less impact a single artillery stonking is going to have. Use up all your artillery on the first line of trenches and the second line will give the first line defenders covering fire. Use your artillery to suppress the 2nd line covering fire and you've left the first line defenders intact. But CM battles aren't often constructed on that scale.

[Zveroboy1]

On 6/20/2019 at 3:31 AM, Bozowans said:

I've felt for a long time that the CM2 engine works better in the modern war setting than it does for WW2.

I feel the same way too for all the reasons you mention. And I enjoy playing SF2 and BS a lot more than the wwii titles I own,  perhaps because I can't directly compare the modern titles with CM1.

Edited June 21, 2019 by Zveroboy1

[Kaunitz]

10 hours ago, MikeyD said:

A lot of problems with trenches in the game can be attributed to 'user error'. I mean there's often a lack of well  thought out 'fortification' planning, no overlapping fields of fire, no layered defenses,  no obstacles, barbed wire or mine fields employed. Its often just some unlucky dudes sitting in a short line of trench in the middle of a field like shooting range targets. There's also a matter of scale. The more geography your trench/bunker system covers the less impact a single artillery stonking is going to have. Use up all your artillery on the first line of trenches and the second line will give the first line defenders covering fire. Use your artillery to suppress the 2nd line covering fire and you've left the first line defenders intact. But CM battles aren't often constructed on that scale.

 

I'm sorry but the main problem with trenches remains that they hardly provide any protection, especially against artillery. Also, as they protrude from the ground, they tend to "catch" direct fire HE shells which would otherwise pass harmlessly above a well placed trench (no wall/hill immediately behind it)? This is also where low velocity guns (infantry support tanks/howitzers) should have a slight edge over high velocity guns.

The networks of fortifications you mention are impossible in CM quickbattles. All fortifications except for TRPs and wooden bunkers (all soft factors set to a minimum to reduce points - an oversight?) are horribly overprized. It is as if they have been deliberately taken out of the game. Why should I buy so many broken and overprized assets? While fortifications should cheaply funnel the opponent into your troops' kill zone, it's the other way round in CM: securing an area with a half-way functionable wire obstacle (1 line or wire + 1 line of mines; which is still less than what you would see in reality) costs more points than securing the same area with troops. To make fortifications (and related stuff, like engineers!) viable options in quickbattles, I think their point cost would be reduced to a third at minimum! Who buys an AT mine for 25 points that covers a single square (8x8m) and doesn't even trigger reliably?! It's a much better investment to spend the points of 3-4 mines (covered area: 24-32m - lol) on an anti tank gun. Generally speaking, I'd also like to point out that properly priced mines would also help to make H2H quickbattles less (anti)tank-dominated.

Of course it's true that trenches should not be invincible against artillery. Especially mortars with their steep trajectories are dangerous for trenches. But I'd argue that the hit rate in the game is over the top. It would take more shells/longer to score hits into a trench. Here is a little diagram I've made for modern mortars: http://community.battlefront.com/topic/123157-improvement-suggestions/?do=findComment&comment=1763553

In his book "On Artillery", Gudmundsson quotes some interesting data from an article in the US. field artillery journal from 1916, which mainly helps to show how howitzers with their more arced trajectories were better at hitting into trenches. Of course it's hard to properly evaluate such tests (what is a "standard trench"?), but I haven't been able to find any other data on this topic.  

Generally speaking, I think the game would profit a lot if you actually had to suppress enemy positions and assault them, rather than sit it out while your FO calls pinpoint arty on them and knock them out. Also, you will never see infantry in trenches getting rolled over by tanks (letting the tanks "pass"), as it seems to have happened quite often on the Eastern Front. Instead, tanks are able to shell infantry in trenches into oblivion.
 

Edited June 21, 2019 by Kaunitz

[Kaunitz]

On 6/20/2019 at 3:31 AM, Bozowans said:

I've felt for a long time that the CM2 engine works better in the modern war setting than it does for WW2. The CM2 engine did start with Shock Force after all. The extreme deadliness of the weapons, the higher degree of control you have over your troops, the high casualties and even the higher numbers of KIA compared to WIA all fit with the modern setting better than WW2.

Apart from a lack of properly working fortifications, map design plays a large part here too. A realistic map offers lots of small options for cover. It's hard to model that on maps, as the smallest height increment at your disposal is 1 meter and it also affects the neighbouring tiles. What is more, quickbattle maps typically lack important features like road embankments and drainage or irrigation ditches. Also, most quickbattle maps (except urban environments, of course) are way too "dense" with very short lines of sight. Fighting is always happening at point blank range, at which modern weapon systems are an overkill.