Hand grenades effectiviness

[com-intern]

Yea I've always felt some sort of proper assault order would be beneficial. Especially because we can't edit orders with SOPs like in other games. An order where troops would move forward at a decent pace but stop consistently to fire at spotted enemies, enemy markers, and be more likely to throw grenades and so on. Essentially Quick but if you see someone or think you see someone shoot them immediately.

The actual Assault Command is pretty bad since it doesn't seem to make troops more likely to fire at targets and both the moving team and the overwatch team share morale. I've had multiple occasions where the movement element have become suppressed resulting the the overwatch element also becoming suppressed. Allowing the movement element to be destroyed. Not to mention that you can't offset the elements so if any direct fire comes in it hits both groups.

[SimpleSimon]

I think the Assault Command is fine honestly, I just wish that an "assault" command placed with its endpoint within about 50m or so would make the attacking infantry prefer to start off with grenades first, and entry second. 

[Bulletpoint]

6 hours ago, SimpleSimon said:

I just wish that an "assault" command placed with its endpoint within about 50m or so would make the attacking infantry prefer to start off with grenades first, and entry second. 

I'd like to adjust it a bit and suggest that the grenades be only thrown if the assaulting squad has an enemy contact marker.

[AlexUK]

I'd just like a throw grenades command. 

[com-intern]

The ASSAULT Command isn't a true assault but is just bounding overwatch. This can be done far better with QUICK and PAUSES but neither are true assault commands.

What is really needed is a command the prioritizes shooting over maneuver. Which we have none of right now.

[com-intern]

Can no longer edit...

But by shooting I mean any sort of engaging the enemy. Be that shooting rockets, small arms, grenades, etc... Of our commands right now we have none that allows for reliable movement and fire which IMO is a problem since the game has gone 1:1. Within a squad or even fire-team it would be reasonable for a handful of men to stop for a second and fire before continuing on. Be that to stop and engage a visual target or a suspected target. Especially in a WW2 setting where a single SMG gunner might have more firepower than 4-5 other men.


MOVE: does not reliably cause your mean to stop to fire. Often the result to FAST.

QUICK: is the only order where your men will stop to engage sometimes - but I've repeatedly seen troops run over (yes over) enemy troops and fail to engage them.

FAST: deliberately reduces the odds of firing for speed

SLOW: In my experience men will not engage enemy while crawling. I suspect its partially to do with the fact that they are not looking forward while crawling severely reducing their spotting chance

HUNT: Is actually move to contact and is unsuited for situations where you do not want to move to contact.

 

[Howler]

I'm likely playing it wrong but I have a hard time issuing movement way points longer than 30m (2-3 AS) without a pause of 10-20s. I make the teams Quick 2-3 AS... Pause 20s...Quick another 2-3AS. The Pause allows for a reasonable exchange of fire before moving closer to a known contact.

When things get particularly nasty - the way points are Fast 1 AS (~8m) followed by a pause to shoot stuff up.

Again, I might not be using Pause in the intended manner...

[Bulletpoint]

4 hours ago, Howler said:

I'm likely playing it wrong but I have a hard time issuing movement way points longer than 30m (2-3 AS) without a pause of 10-20s.

I'm not sure I undestand what you mean here?

[Howler]

3 hours ago, Bulletpoint said:

I'm not sure I undestand what you mean here?

My apologies. I wasn't implying that I was not able to draw way points of 100's of meters in distance.

I was responding to a post where the various movement commands where listed and the poster seemed to want some way for units to fire on the move. I've had some success by using a combination of shorter way points and pauses.

[Bulletpoint]

50 minutes ago, Howler said:

My apologies. I wasn't implying that I was not able to draw way points of 100's of meters in distance.

I was responding to a post where the various movement commands where listed and the poster seemed to want some way for units to fire on the move. I've had some success by using a combination of shorter way points and pauses.

Alright, I see. The way I do it is to simply move them a short distance and then let them sit for the rest of the turn.

[com-intern]

That is exactly what I do.

1-3 action square (so 10-30 meter?) bounds depending on terrain tied in with anywhere from 5-30s pauses. For example, if I am pushing a platoon through deep woods with low visibility bounds are one action square with 20 second pauses on average. This allows all elements of the platoon to advance with supporting elements being able to see them and the long pause time gives everyone a chance to spot an enemy.

However, a consistent problem I run into is that men using QUICK balance movement and shooting. Often choose to move over shooting. A command that emphasized shooting over movement would be a fantastic tactical addition as its not something we have access to right now. An example from a scenario I am currently testing. Soviet infantry enter a trench system with suppressed German infantry within it. The suppressing fires lift at the last moment to avoid fratricide. The first soldier into the trench system spots a German soldier but runs over him. The follow on men in the Soviet section also ignore the German soldier. The men stop their movement and then began to slowly rotate to look back at the suppressed German soldier to engage him, however, at this time the German has become sufficiently recovered to engage the Soviet infantry with his MP40. Resulting in multiple casualties before he is killed.
 

[Bulletpoint]

1 hour ago, com-intern said:

That is exactly what I do.

1-3 action square (so 10-30 meter?) bounds depending on terrain tied in with anywhere from 5-30s pauses. For example, if I am pushing a platoon through deep woods with low visibility bounds are one action square with 20 second pauses on average. This allows all elements of the platoon to advance with supporting elements being able to see them and the long pause time gives everyone a chance to spot an enemy.

However, a consistent problem I run into is that men using QUICK balance movement and shooting. Often choose to move over shooting. A command that emphasized shooting over movement would be a fantastic tactical addition as its not something we have access to right now. An example from a scenario I am currently testing. Soviet infantry enter a trench system with suppressed German infantry within it. The suppressing fires lift at the last moment to avoid fratricide. The first soldier into the trench system spots a German soldier but runs over him. The follow on men in the Soviet section also ignore the German soldier. The men stop their movement and then began to slowly rotate to look back at the suppressed German soldier to engage him, however, at this time the German has become sufficiently recovered to engage the Soviet infantry with his MP40. Resulting in multiple casualties before he is killed.
 

I agree with you, but I don't think it would need a whole new move mode. It would just need them to tweak the existing QUICK move mode to make it more focused on shooting and less on moving (at very short ranges). If you wanted to make them move instead of shooting, you could still use the FAST command for that.

Edited April 22, 2020 by Bulletpoint

[Erwin]

2 hours ago, com-intern said:

The suppressing fires lift at the last moment to avoid fratricide.

That may be your problem.  Why lift it?  The system/AI does an xnt job of ensuring that friendly small arms fire doesn't harm friendlies but you need to maintain enemy suppression in this instance.

[com-intern]

2 hours ago, Erwin said:

That may be your problem.  Why lift it?  The system/AI does an xnt job of ensuring that friendly small arms fire doesn't harm friendlies but you need to maintain enemy suppression in this instance.

The game mechanics are such that small arms can only produce suppression and cannot cause casualties. There really isn't a system wherein AI tries to avoid friendly fire. HE fire can always cause friendly casualties.

As to why I do it:

* HE will still produce wounds

* Small arms will still produce suppression

* It often makes more sense to life suppressing fires to new targets that threaten the infantry as they take the position.

* Against the AI especially I find it cheap

[MOS:96B2P]

14 minutes ago, com-intern said:

The game mechanics are such that small arms can only produce suppression and cannot cause casualties.

Maybe I misunderstood the above.  Small arms, even a pistol, will cause casualties.  Think about the times a pistol armed tank crew bails out of a knocked out tank.  Pistols blazing death and destruction .......    

Edited April 22, 2020 by MOS:96B2P

[com-intern]

47 minutes ago, MOS:96B2P said:

Maybe I misunderstood the above.  Small arms, even a pistol, will cause casualties.  Think about the times a pistol armed tank crew bails out of a knocked out tank.  Pistols blazing death and destruction .......    

I'm speaking in respect to friendly fire.

Small arms can only do friendly suppression but cannot kill friendly troops. HE on the other hand will both suppress friendly troops and kill them.

[MOS:96B2P]

42 minutes ago, com-intern said:

I'm speaking in respect to friendly fire.  Small arms can only do friendly suppression but cannot kill friendly troops. HE on the other hand will both suppress friendly troops and kill them.

Ah, okay.  Very good. 

[Erwin]

2 hours ago, com-intern said:

* Small arms will still produce suppression

* It often makes more sense to life suppressing fires to new targets that threaten the infantry as they take the position.

* Against the AI especially I find it cheap

If you use small arms to suppress an enemy one is assaulting that usually is effective and doesn't hurt friendlies - they will do their job b4 getting suppressed (if at all) in my experience.  I usually use timed TARGET to make sure that the small arms suppression stops after friendlies have started close combat. 

All am saying is that in the instance you mentioned you should not lift small arms suppressive fire as that will degrade the enemy's response.  (HE, agreed... that needs to be lifted.)   If you are saying that small arms suppression is gamey, that is a different issue.  CM is a game after all.

[General Jack Ripper]

3 hours ago, com-intern said:

* Against the AI especially I find it cheap

Well said.

I work around that particular gamey-ness by having my maneuver element approach from an angle removed from the "friendly" suppressive fire.

A clear lane of fire, and a clear lane of movement, both converging on the contested position.

[com-intern]

Yea Ripper, that is what I usually do too. I still remove the suppressive fire when my men enter the same action square as the enemy. Which is where I most often see the issue I brought up earlier.


Erwin, while it is a game it would still be useful to have a command that emphasized shooting over movement. Which is something we do not have right now. The shooting emphasized orders are all binary.

[c3k]

Grenades:

(Germans, IRL, had offensive as well as defensive grenades. The defensive grenades (I've forgotten the designation) were essentially identical to US "pineapple" but smooth. Nicknamed "eggs". In-game, they just use stick grenades (offensive ones). IRL, more blast, less shrapnel and thinner shrapnel. Closer to a deadly flash-bang than a frag. FWIW. My understanding is that the game treats all grenades identically.)

The more grenades a unit has, the more likely they are to use them. Splitting off an Assault Team will make that team heavy on grenades. They'll toss them with abandon...if the situation warrants.

After much play, I've found out that the enemy grenades land with unerring accuracy and will cause casualties among my most critical unit. Like the panzerschreck gunner, just before the enemy tank hoves into view. As for MY grenades? Yeah, they never land near their target and when they do, they seemingly turn the enemy into enraged berserkers who then kill all my men.

[Bud Backer]

22 minutes ago, c3k said:

they seemingly turn the enemy into enraged berserkers who then kill all my men.

But they die GLORIOUSLY!

[Erwin]

7 hours ago, c3k said:

....they seemingly turn the enemy into enraged berserkers who then kill all my men.

BF have long had that routine in the programming re longterm preparation for "CM: Zombie Apocalypse"

[Anonymous_Jonze]

My only issue with grenades is that I wish my pixeltruppen could throw them farther.

[domfluff]

IIRC, from previous discussions:

- Grenades *are* toned down a little. This is due to the inability of action spots to represent effective spacing.

- Grenades will randomly fail to hurt people. This is going to be due to how explosions are modelled in CM.

From memory - explosions are in two parts, the explosion itself, and some number of randomised "fragments", which are invisible projectiles or raycasts drawn from the explosion site. Those will be in randomised directions and elevations, so it's more than possible, although unlikely, for a grenade to land in the middle of a group of men and hit none of them.