How do you advance over open terrain?

[Yskonyn]

Its been very interesting to read all your replies. I am grateful the many replies my simple question generated!

I do identify with the points made above to sometimes take the most obvious piece of cover and concealment and play the waiting game to see if my men can spot enemies across over time.

It’s of course a huge risk as you’re constantly under threat of being shelled to bits the longer you stay there.

But at the same time my experience with the lethality of enemy fire makes me hesitant to advance.

I am definitely going to try the splitting up of my platoons and see what that gives me for results.

[MikeyD]

Long time players often get afflicted with 'CMitis'. That's where you find yourself reflexively scouting out defilade positions and identifying potential ambush sites while driving down the road. Its rare that a 'CMitis' sufferer will glance at an open field by the road and imagine advancing your men up the middle of it. Because that's considered a worst case scenario. Basically do ANYTHING before you resort to doing that.

Its been said that CM is optimized for company+ size engagements. That's generally enough men to be able to absorb casualties and keep on fighting but not so many that you lose track of your units. If you play too small a single fire fight can ruin your day. If you're purchasing QB units with limited points you might want forego expensive exotic equipment in favor of a bigger headcount. 

[IMHO]

2 hours ago, Erwin said:

Xnt points IMHO.  I'd forgotten about that but yes have found that 2 man scouts can get surprisingly close to an enemy without being spotted.  It's even better when you have a few casualties and end up with some 1-man teams.  Those a xnt for scouting esp if used together with other 1-man teams.

1. Thanks for your kind words.

2. I don't really use them - very small teams - as scouts. They can't really see ****. Just pure baits. And as a bait a one man team is worse than a 2/3-men team in my experience. One-man team is too stealthy. Enemy just don't see them and I have to move this one-man team too close to make it seen and provoke the reaction. Spotting itself I do by full squads and a lot of them. These small teams are no more than a bait.

 

Edited January 26, 2020 by IMHO

[IICptMillerII]

On 1/24/2020 at 7:45 PM, Bozowans said:

Real human beings are fast, mobile, and very good at taking advantage of every little piece of cover they can find. On the other hand, the AI pixeltruppen in CM are very slow and sluggish, get stuck on things, and are not that good at using cover. There are only a few things they can do (like move forward, crouch, go prone). They are limited by the simple animations and 3D models.

 

On 1/24/2020 at 7:45 PM, Bozowans said:

In a situation like that IRL, they wouldn't just be standing still or running in a jerky straight line like they are in the game, but they would be ducking and weaving in and out of cover, doubled over while dodging and blind-firing behind random junk in the street, etc. If you watch combat footage, you can see just how crazy agile real people are. Sometimes it looks like they are bunny-hopping down the street or something.

The internet does more harm than good. Combat footage from the Syrian civil war of people hipping and hopping through streets, wildly blind firing their weapons all over the place and spraying machine gun fire down random side roads is not indicative of firefights in any way. I can assure you that most disciplined armies do not act like that while under fire. There are a ton of modern examples of a disciplined army fighting against what you see in those combat footage vidoes, and the results are extremely one sided.

I will definitely agree that the animations in CM do not allow for an accurate representation of all of the various movements humans (disciplined or not) do perform while in combat, though I think most games/simulators are guilty of this as well. 

On 1/24/2020 at 7:45 PM, Bozowans said:

The terrain on a CM map is obviously not as detailed as real life is either, and cannot simulate all the tiny bits of cover and undulations and rises and dips and other micro-terrain elements you would find IRL. Other games might ruthlessly punish you for going out into the open by giving you some kind of penalty, or they will have things like a +2 cover bonus if you are in a forest tile or whatever.

This is actually exactly what CM does. Microterrain is not visually simulated, but it is calculated when determining if a pixeltruppen takes fire that actually wounds him or not. CM simulates that humans are, like you have pointed out, not always so easy to hit even when moving through or taking cover in "open" terrain. 

On 1/24/2020 at 7:45 PM, Bozowans said:

In CM, squads in open ground can take more punishment than they can IRL, especially if they aren't moving. Troops running around seem to be much more vulnerable, but it often surprises me how much fire a squad can take if they are lying prone on the ground and not moving. On the other hand, a guy in a foxhole might go down with the first burst of incoming fire.

See above as to why this is. 

 

[DougPhresh]

The terrain issues are exacerbated by a key capability of the Coyote and Fennek being absent:

It makes recce much easier if instead of sticking your neck out to see what's going on, your vehicle does.

Quote

Its been said that CM is optimized for company+ size engagements. That's generally enough men to be able to absorb casualties and keep on fighting but not so many that you lose track of your units. If you play too small a single fire fight can ruin your day. If you're purchasing QB units with limited points you might want forego expensive exotic equipment in favor of a bigger headcount. 

I maintain that with how PCs have come along, battalion-sized engagements should be the goal for QB maps and scenarios. A battalion has the tools necessary to complete a mission independently. In fact, regarding Shock Force 2, having being part of a Canadian Battlegroup myself any CO that tried to send elements out independently in a large scale force-on-force conflict would be sacked.

I understand that there are engine limitations, but there were engine limitations on water and hit decals too. Right now there is not room to maneuver or disperse the kind of force needed to accomplish many missions. Giving room to breathe, conduct real recce and maneuver rather than trying to take a town with a platoon or conversely pushing a Mech Battalion through a 2000m x 2000m frontage would be an improvement.

In the modern titles this is especially important because there are several maps where there is hardly anything outside of the minimum range of the AT-3.

Edited January 26, 2020 by DougPhresh

[Sgt.Squarehead]

I think the Recon Fennek's MMS may be modelled at least in part, they are insanely good at spotting stuff.

[domfluff]

19 hours ago, DougPhresh said:

I maintain that with how PCs have come along, battalion-sized engagements should be the goal for QB maps and scenarios. A battalion has the tools necessary to complete a mission independently. In fact, regarding Shock Force 2, having being part of a Canadian Battlegroup myself any CO that tried to send elements out independently in a large scale force-on-force conflict would be sacked.

It's not the computer specs that people are worrying about, it's the amount of management required - for some, the company-level hits a sweet spot for the effort:time ratio. That doesn't mean that's the only valid opinion.

[Sulman]

The point about firepower has a ring of truth about it, but I think only if you have that firepower in the first place. There's a campaign scenario called 'The Screen' in TF Thunder which is a good example. I played it through carefully and methodically, my ATGM strikers easily picking off elements of the ENY advance force. Then the realization that the crossroads settlement is empty, and the sinking feeling that this is about to turn into a hasty defense. Anyway, if you don't very carefully organize your unit's cover, they will get butchered by the very nasty tank-shaped surprise in store for the unwary. CMBS is similar, you have to be very careful with nightlines on some maps when you are dealing with tanks in broad daylight. Even a T-55 can range the entire map with east. 

[Bozowans]

On 1/26/2020 at 2:51 PM, IICptMillerII said:

The internet does more harm than good. Combat footage from the Syrian civil war of people hipping and hopping through streets, wildly blind firing their weapons all over the place and spraying machine gun fire down random side roads is not indicative of firefights in any way. I can assure you that most disciplined armies do not act like that while under fire. There are a ton of modern examples of a disciplined army fighting against what you see in those combat footage vidoes, and the results are extremely one sided.

I don't quite understand what your point is here. Are you saying that CM is only supposed to simulate highly disciplined armies that don't "hip and hop" through the streets or what? Why does CM have options to simulate poorly motivated conscript units then? Shock Force has uncon fighters that are supposed to represent untrained neighborhood militias defending their homes and whatnot, which are exactly the guys that would be hipping and hopping around. Not to mention the poor conscripts in the Syrian Army. What if you wanted to make a Red vs Red scenario where both sides are undisciplined?

Now I've never been in a firefight, but it seems strange to claim that being agile and running around a lot is not indicative of firefights "in any way". Staying in one place for too long seems like a bad idea in modern warfare. You want to step out of cover, fire that RPG, then get out fast before the enemy knows what happened. Modern warfare in most of the world seems to be dominated by constant, relatively low-intensity skirmishing and sniping between small, mobile infantry units.

In CM though, it's very difficult to do the kind of hit-and-run attacks that you see all the time IRL. There's no way to fire an RPG and then make a run for it. At least not if you're playing WEGO. You have to wait until the turn is over to tell them to move, and by then they will probably be dead.

 

On 1/26/2020 at 2:51 PM, IICptMillerII said:

This is actually exactly what CM does. Microterrain is not visually simulated, but it is calculated when determining if a pixeltruppen takes fire that actually wounds him or not. CM simulates that humans are, like you have pointed out, not always so easy to hit even when moving through or taking cover in "open" terrain. 

See above as to why this is. 

I don't understand what this means either. Can you elaborate a bit? How exactly does it calculate microterrain? From what I can tell, the game engine only gives a "cover bonus" to units that are directly behind hard cover like trees or buildings. The underlying terrain tile (whether it's rocky, bushes, open, etc) does not seem to have any effect at all, which is what I was referring to before. So rocky terrain doesn't give your troops more of a bonus than open terrain does. Am I wrong about that?

[Erwin]

2 hours ago, Bozowans said:

There's no way to fire an RPG and then make a run for it.

+1   Hoping that in CM3 we'll have more sophisticated orders like "Wait in Ambush, Fire and Immediately Displace to a 2nd Location".  That would be very useful for snipers as well.

[Zveroboy1]

You sort of can. Unmask a unit, cancel its covered arc then give a fire order, pause 30 seconds and give a quick or fast move order to pull back. If the timing is not right or a cloud of dust or what not gets in front of the unit then the ambush will be blown though. But yes especially in modern warfare, it often feels like this is the only way to stay alive. Repositioning otherwise you're toast. And often it is not a matter of minutes but seconds.

[Erwin]

The issue is that it is rarely effective doing it manually like that.  Also, it's an unnecessary PITA to have to make all those extra clicks to do something that should be automated.  Have long held that BF needs to focus on redoing UI items so that players can focus on the fun tactical decisions rather than the "make work" activities.

[slysniper]

A ambush command sure would be nice.

One of my present methods is have my unit wait out of the line of sight, , move it into line of sight trying to time it so that it engages for approx. the amount of time I want in the minute turn. next turn, immediatly get the heck out of there. (this method can be pretty successful)

[Bil Hardenberger]

1 hour ago, slysniper said:

A ambush command sure would be nice.

One of my present methods is have my unit wait out of the line of sight, , move it into line of sight trying to time it so that it engages for approx. the amount of time I want in the minute turn. next turn, immediatly get the heck out of there. (this method can be pretty successful)

That's my methodology as well (seen in the CMSF2 BETA AAR v Baneman).  You are one smart cookie Sly, even if you can't spell "immediately".   

[MikeyD]

In the age of the machine gun dodging and weaving like a boxer as you run across open ground (the topic of this thread) probably won't do you much good. People can't dodge incoming bullets like in The Matrix. You're as likely to dodge into a bullet as dodge away from it. The closest we've got to this in the game is the 'assault' command which few people use correctly. Up-run-drop-up-run-drop. The 'fast' command  basically tells your troops to run like hell to get themselves out of a 'situation'.

CM terrain is more 'micro' than you may realize playing the game at camera level 3 and higher (as most people do). When you're down in the weeds with the troops you're better able to spot the dips, folds and bumps (if the map designer added them). An old joke of mine is people tend to play at a camera height where you start to lose the fine detail - then they complain the game lacks fine detail.  CMSF2 is desert, of course, which tends to have fewer terrain features. CMFI Italy goes microterrain crazy on most maps.

Edited January 29, 2020 by MikeyD

[JulianJ]

I think that a lot of the BF games map designs do not take full account of "microterrain" - which you can design in to help infantry. Many scenarios lack this, I assume because it takes so much time - for example, using Bocage Hedges as undergrowth in woods or micromanaging undulating terrain.  

We are now much more familiar with the terrain in Syria and it is not flat as a pancake as often in SF1/2: in vids I've seen lots of dips, ditches, shallow wadis, and piles of rocks which do give infantry cover, which are often not replicated in the game maps. 

If scenario designers (some do!) paid more attention to this, then we would have more satisfying games where well-handled infantry can sneak up on targets,  rather than being instantly blown away.

[Erwin]

17 minutes ago, JulianJ said:

terrain in Syria and it is not flat as a pancake as often in SF1/2: in vids I've seen lots of dips, ditches, shallow wadis, and piles of rocks which do give infantry cover, which are often not replicated in the game maps. 

+1  Desert terrain may look flat as a pancake, but as you say, it really is not.  There are always undulations that can be used to approach an enemy relatively safely.  WW2 Africa theater often mentions that.  

[JulianJ]

Ironically, I started playing WW2 games with Airfix tanks and soldiers on tables, where it was too easy to have flat terrain (we had polystyrene hills, etc) but there is no excuse for it where we are using computers, and also can have access to satellite mapping. It is laziness or lack of imagination on the part of scenario designers. I think BF should do  better in this; I have found often that the QB games suffer from this flaw; and contrariwise some mod scenario designers do put a lot of effort in to create good landscapes.

[Erwin]

My suspicion re why WW2 Africa desert theater hasn't had so much demand is that many folks have the idea that deserts are flat, featureless and boring.  Maybe there a a few places in the world that are like that.  But, that is very rare.  Anyone who has been in deserts knows that desert terrain is a) beautiful, b) often with rugged and dramatic vistas, and c) marvelous for long LOS and maneuver warfare.  We need to regularly chant for BF to consider an Afrika Korps module for CMFI.  (Especially if they ever get to the earlier WW2 period.)

There is a reason that the US trains on the Utah-Arizona border -  looks a lot like Afghanistan

[JulianJ]

Yes, Erwin, I totally agree. A lot of material I have read about WW2 involved moving and utilising terrain features, and some of our games don't represent that fully, especially as we now have that satellite mapping and can see that the desert is not a flat sand table.  As you say, memoirs of people involved are quite clear it is not so. I don't know if you have seen some of the Houthi videos of combat in Yemen, but the desert is grey gravel with lots of dark rocky outcroppings  - the Saudi sand coloured vehicles stand out like a sore thumb. I know that is incredible Saudi incompetence (how much does a few pots of paint cost?) but it is interesting how a desert isn't at all yellow or flat.

[Zveroboy1]

9 hours ago, JulianJ said:

 I have found often that the QB games suffer from this flaw; and contrariwise some mod scenario designers do put a lot of effort in to create good landscapes.

True but it is a bit unfair to compare the two though. Mark Ezra has to make hundreds of QB maps for each game. He can't spend weeks or months on a map like some scenario designers do.

[Erwin]

There is no doubt that designing a great map takes a great deal of time.  Even more time to make a great (playtested) scenario.  Making a great campaign that uses all the features available like core units, ammo and material conservation, branching storylines/missions etc. is a career.  Designers (and modders) are heroes.  But, it's noticeable that we had many xnt user-made CMSF1 campaigns, but since then the numbers have decreased dramatically.  Designers and modders have gotten burned out and/or left the hobby.

Have suggested that BF should create modules of campaigns for sale since a great campaign requires so many man-months or even years of effort.

[A Canadian Cat]

On 1/28/2020 at 9:33 PM, Bozowans said:

On 1/26/2020 at 3:51 PM, IICptMillerII said:

This is actually exactly what CM does. Microterrain is not visually simulated, but it is calculated when determining if a pixeltruppen takes fire that actually wounds him or not. CM simulates that humans are, like you have pointed out, not always so easy to hit even when moving through or taking cover in "open" terrain. 

See above as to why this is. 

I don't understand what this means either. Can you elaborate a bit? How exactly does it calculate microterrain? From what I can tell, the game engine only gives a "cover bonus" to units that are directly behind hard cover like trees or buildings. The underlying terrain tile (whether it's rocky, bushes, open, etc) does not seem to have any effect at all, which is what I was referring to before. So rocky terrain doesn't give your troops more of a bonus than open terrain does. Am I wrong about that?

I'm not @IICptMillerII but he is correct. The game does not directly model the smallest of terrain features* but it does give a fudge factor to the hit calculation to simulate it. Walls and trees do not give a cover bonus - they block incoming rounds and shrapnel until they are damaged and can no longer block stuff. Buildings too - although they are more complex because the internal structure is abstracted so both things are going on there.

Terrain definitely does have an effect. Heavy forest provides more protection than light forest which give more then just grass.

*Terrain features such as what @JulianJ are referring to are modelled by the game - but they have to be added to a map. Some maps don't have enough and the very first QB maps from CMBN were frequently like that many do. Find those features and use them - it make a difference.

[Bozowans]

12 hours ago, IanL said:

I'm not @IICptMillerII but he is correct. The game does not directly model the smallest of terrain features* but it does give a fudge factor to the hit calculation to simulate it. Walls and trees do not give a cover bonus - they block incoming rounds and shrapnel until they are damaged and can no longer block stuff. Buildings too - although they are more complex because the internal structure is abstracted so both things are going on there.

Terrain definitely does have an effect. Heavy forest provides more protection than light forest which give more then just grass.

*Terrain features such as what @JulianJ are referring to are modelled by the game - but they have to be added to a map. Some maps don't have enough and the very first QB maps from CMBN were frequently like that many do. Find those features and use them - it make a difference.

So you're saying that the terrain tiles behave like the CMx1 engine does? Where the underlying terrain tile gives a flat bonus to whoever is in it? So if you are in a "heavy forest" tile, even with no actual trees placed on the tile in the map editor, you get a cover bonus anyway? And by hit calculation, do you mean units are more inaccurate when firing at enemies in a bush tile than in a grass tile for example?

What about shell holes or foxholes? They don't seem to provide much cover unless the occupants are cowering at the bottom of them. I could of course be wrong since I don't know how the game was made, but it always seemed to me that the underlying terrain tile (whether a wheat field or bushes or rocks or whatever) might give your guys concealment, but not any more actual protection from bullets than open ground does. One example of an actual cover bonus I can think of was added in the 4.0 upgrade, where they added the infantry peeking around corners behavior. IIRC they said in the patch notes that the guys posted at the corners get a cover bonus, since there is no animation for peeking or leaning around the corner. I've noticed in the game that units become much more inaccurate when shooting at guys posted at corners.

It still surprises me though how much punishment squads in open ground can take. In the most recent scenario I played, a Syrian special forces squad got caught and pinned in place in flat, open pavement at about 500m. Even though the terrain was flat as a pool table, I had several machine guns, a sniper, and some Strykers firing at them for several minutes before they took a casualty. 

It always seemed to me that movement and distance are the biggest factors in determining casualties. Accuracy always seems to improve when firing at targets running around upright, but the moment the targets drop to the ground and stop moving, accuracy falls off a cliff even when they are out in the open.

[domfluff]

Heavy forest tiles do act differently, even if there are no trees present, but the presence of trees will have an additional effect. Trees are (sort of) WYSIWYG - or at least the trunks are, and they will block shots. The tile alone will affect movement, concealment and (apparently) provide a "saving throw". Same is true for rocky tiles (the ones with rocks that spawn on them).

Fortifications seem to only be WYSIWYG (but that's mostly speculation/observation) - the physical object will block shots, but that means that distance and angle is important - i.e., how much of the soldier is exposed, relative to the firer. That might also explain why you've seen better results in the open, since lying prone presents a much smaller relative target than being up on one knee.