Questions about WWII infantry for CMx2

[Apocal]

What a curious statement.

So they calculated, on the fly, the factors for accurate, consistent HOB using mechanical time fuzes during unplanned fire missions?

I'm not saying I disbelieve you, but I'm gonna have to see some proof of that.

[Battlefront.com]

AKD,

Thanks for the additional information and pictures!

This quote is exactly what I was talking about earlier when saying that exact location doesn't translate into an exact kill:

The next step is to try to find out where the enemy gun or tank is, and wheel up a tank or so to shoot at him. The only trouble is, that probably only the men in the first tank saw his gun ash, and they aren't talking any more. The tanks trying to get into position to do some shooting are easily seen and get shot before they can do much about it. I have seen it happen. In the hedgerows it is almost impossible to get firing positions in the front row, and in the rear you can't see the enemy anyway so no one bothers. Usually the tanks waited for the infantry to do something about it.

I expect this will happen a lot in CM: Normandy, no matter what happens with FoW foxholes. The problem, from a game standpoint, is that if the first tank spots the ATG before it dies, the player will know the location of the ATG. This is the God problem that we all hate so much unless it helps us win battles

This is another good one:

A tank-infantry-engineer team was devised for dealing with the hedgerow problem. The teams were trained to advance as a coordinated unit, each hedgerow representing a new line of departure. When the engineers had blown a hole for the tanks to pass through, the tanks would enter the field, fire their 75-mm guns into the corners, and spray the lateral hedgerow ahead to cover the infantry scouts advancing (in this case) along the axial hedges. These scouts would also be covered by BAR men. Two of the four demolitions men followed behind, and the engineers and the leader of the infantry squad would choose the best place for the tank to go through the next barrier. Special EE-8 phones were installed on the rear of the tanks and connected with the tank's interphone system for tank-infantry communication during action. Two engineers would stay with the vehicle to protect it during advance, scanning and firing at side hedgerows to keep down enemy bazooka teams. In the area close to the line of departure, hedgerow embankments were carefully scooped out on the American side, leaving a shell which the tanks could push through on the day of attack.

The hedgerows have a distinct disadvantage in that once the attacker gets into the enclosed field he pretty much knows what to light up even before he's seen if there is someone there or not. Not always effective, obviously, but it's not like the Americans pouring through a breach aren't expecting opposition

Not that this means we don't need to have FoW foxholes. They are something we want for all kinds of situations, not just Hedgerows (where I think they would be easier to deal with being visible, IMHO).

Steve

[JonS]

So they calculated, on the fly, the factors for accurate, consistent HOB using mechanical time fuzes during unplanned fire missions?

Yes. It's one of the tasks of the observer. It's also why the inital phase of a mission is called "the adjusting phase". Seriously, it's not that hard to adjust HOB 'on the fly'. 3 guns, 1 RFFE:

* All groundburst - “UP 40, REPEAT”

* 3 in the AIR, 20 m HOB - CORRECT

* 1 in the AIR, 2 on the GROUND - “UP 20, REPEAT”

* 2 in the AIR, 1 on the GROUND - CORRECT

* 3 in the AIR, 40m HOB - "DOWN 20, REPEAT"

I'm not saying I disbelieve you, but I'm gonna have to see some proof of that.

Off the top of my head: Pemberton "the development of artillery tactics and equipment".

[JonS]

Quite right! I'll rephrase

Not necessarily. Depends on the amount of artillery coming down for the defined area, of course, but don't forget that the major advantage of being dug in is that you're below the fragmentation envelope. Unless there are airbursts in the mix, direct hits on positions are needed for the sort of artillery used in Normandy. Without the VT Fuse available in Normandy, airbursts weren't as easily achieved. So even 155s wouldn't have much of an effect if the density of shell impacts on a given area weren't enough to produce favorable odds of hitting positions.

How's that?

Better, although 'unless' implies that MTSQ was rare and/or unusual

AIUI, and FWIW, under the right conditions MTSQ and VT produced about the same number of airbursts at about the same HOB. The big advantage that VT had over MTSQ was that it didn't need to be ranged for HOB - it came in at the correct HOB by default (yeah, yeah, I know; a blinding glimpse of the obvious that is). That, in turn, meant that the surprise and shock effect of VT was markedly higher than MTSQ, even if everything else was equal.

OTOH, Normandy was very far from being those 'right' conditions, so you'd probably expect a higher proportion of ground bursts than desirable, or an HOB that was too high. Then again, given the generally wooded nature of the area, VT would tend to have an HOB that was too high anyway, and SQ fuzes would give a pseudo-airburst in those trees.

[Steiner14]

JasonC, very interesting post and numbers.

Idea:

To further increase realism and unpredictability, dummy dugouts/bunkers would be very nice.

I mean objects that look identical to the real ones, but offer no protection. The enemy must be already adequately close to identify them as dummy positions.

When it comes to artillery barrages on own positions, the existance of dummy positions could make a big difference.

[undead reindeer cavalry]

ok, so we are stuck with no FOW field works. it sucks and all that. i will die a little everytime i see a squad, or much worse a crewed weapon like an AT gun, positioned outside the position they did sweat for for hours to create, as it does a great deal of damage to the sense of really being there (and is damn ugly intellectually). i can deal with it. i will cry. then start to issue new orders as the sobbing slowly ceases and my mouse hand doesn't tremble too much any more.

so, that being done with, what about improving the way things are currently done in CM:SF? for example trenches can't be positioned freely (like in CMx1 for example), but must follow certain rough angles. they also are very shallow and do not offer too much cover. foxholes even less. perhaps make a few variations about them, like with overheard cover or some extra depth? this isn't that hard to add and i guess some of this is already planned (i haven't really followed this forum for a while). what about letting the player to position the trenches?

EDIT: OK just read the other thread. very happy to see that player can position trenches during the setup phase.

[Lanzfeld]

I expect this will happen a lot in CM: Normandy, no matter what happens with FoW foxholes. The problem, from a game standpoint, is that if the first tank spots the ATG before it dies, the player will know the location of the ATG. This is the God problem that we all hate so much unless it helps us win battles :DSteve

Steve,

This is the reason why I brought up the problem of seeing muzzle flashes and ATGM/ATG smoke (in another thread) when you dont have any LOS to the spot they came from. Vehicle smoke as well because it shows exactly where the said vehicle has parked for an ambush after it moves. Well, I am sure I am not the first one to point these out to you. I am just very happy that in the other thread you said that they were going to be fixed?....I think?

Anyway, it is great that we can all post our desires with respect to CMSF and CM:N in a forum and know that you are listening.

[akd]

ok, so we are stuck with no FOW field works. it sucks and all that. i will die a little everytime i see a squad, or much worse a crewed weapon like an AT gun, positioned outside the position they did sweat for for hours to create, as it does a great deal of damage to the sense of really being there (and is damn ugly intellectually). i can deal with it. i will cry. then start to issue new orders as the sobbing slowly ceases and my mouse hand doesn't tremble too much any more.

Please read the entire thread more closely. Weapon positions (AT guns included) and bunkers will have fog of war, and Steve says they are shooting to have fog of war foxholes, which would be the typical defensive position of an infantry squad. Trenchlines will be visible after start of the scenario (but not during setup).

[Michael Emrys]

...HOB.

"Height Over..."? Not familiar with this piece of artilleryspeak.

Michael

[Battlefront.com]

JonS,

Thanks for the info! Fortunately, this sort of stuff is very easy to handle with the new artillery system we have in CMx1. I'm sure you'll make sure we do it right

Steiner14,

To further increase realism and unpredictability, dummy dugouts/bunkers would be very nice.

I mean objects that look identical to the real ones, but offer no protection. The enemy must be already adequately close to identify them as dummy positions.

It is a good suggestion and I've stuck it into the design doc for fortifications. Thanks.

When it comes to artillery barrages on own positions, the existance of dummy positions could make a big difference.

Overall, I don't think so. However, I think it could be quite important for a particular battle because of various circumstances. That's why I think there is value in including dummy positions as an option.

undead reindeer cavalry,

ok, so we are stuck with no FOW field works. it sucks and all that. i will die a little everytime i see a squad, or much worse a crewed weapon like an AT gun, positioned outside the position they did sweat for for hours to create, as it does a great deal of damage to the sense of really being there (and is damn ugly intellectually). i can deal with it. i will cry. then start to issue new orders as the sobbing slowly ceases and my mouse hand doesn't tremble too much any more.

I see you already found the bit about positioning trenches, so hopefully you've seen that heavy weapons are also going to have FoW and most likely foxholes too.

Lanzfeld,

This is the reason why I brought up the problem of seeing muzzle flashes and ATGM/ATG smoke (in another thread) when you dont have any LOS to the spot they came from. Vehicle smoke as well because it shows exactly where the said vehicle has parked for an ambush after it moves. Well, I am sure I am not the first one to point these out to you. I am just very happy that in the other thread you said that they were going to be fixed?....I think?

The good news is that this is already fixed In the Alpha we're working with now you can only see this stuff if you've spotted the unit first. Unfortunately, the effect is not retroactive, which means if you don't see the unit 1 milisecond before it fires you won't see the smoke even if you spot it 1 milisecond after it's fired. It's very much an either/or thing and it's why we've been reluctant to change the behavior until a couple of weeks ago.

Anyway, it is great that we can all post our desires with respect to CMSF and CM:N in a forum and know that you are listening.

Thanks. Years and years of this has shown that some people are simply incapable of grasping the simple concept that bad attitudes and being critical aren't the same thing. We NEED critical feedback to make the game better... we don't need bad attitudes. Since bad attitudes actually interfere with quality critical discussions, it's only tolerated for so long. We can't be accused of not giving people plenty of chances to figure this out.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

HOB = Height of Bombardment??

Steve

[Michael Emrys]

Height Over Battlefield???

Michael

[Sergei]

Height of burst.

[Michael Emrys]

Height of burst.

Aieee! [slaps forehead] Thanks, Sergei, for pointing out the near-obvious. I will remember you the next time I have trouble figuring out a calendar.

Michael

[Steiner14]

Steiner14,

It is a good suggestion and I've stuck it into the design doc for fortifications. Thanks.

Cool!

Idea:

Although trenches will become visible after setup, wouldn't it be nice, if the scenario designer could decide, if he wants certain trenches being visible during the setup-phase already? (i.e. representing a well reconnoitered area, or the battle of a counter-attack)

[Battlefront.com]

Not directly, no. Remember that the defending player is placing his own trenches so it's not possible to show the attacking player where they are because Setup happens simultaneously. However, the scenario designer can place some of the trenches himself in the Editor and put them in a self contained Setup Zone. This means the player can't move them, but can move the units if he wants (no Setup Zone would disallow any movement). Then he can assign a Label to the area and notify the player, in the Briefing or through the Label itself (e.g. "Enemy Trenches"). Both of these things are visible to the player before the game starts.

Steve

[Steiner14]

Stupid me. Ofcourse.

[akd]

One more interesting quote on types of hedgerows, the effectiveness of hedgerows as fortifications and overcoming them:

The hedgerows were similar – banks of dirt, sometimes with stones in them, as much as three to five feet thick at the base and tapering gradually to a thickness of two or three feet. This embankment usually was four to five feet high and surmounted by shrubs or trees. The sides were covered with grass and shrubs. The origin of hedgerows remains rather obscure, though it is likely that the scarcity of building materials (many of the houses are made with wooden beams and earth), and the rich soil and climate (which makes plants grow rapidly and thickens the hedges) contributed to their development. There are said to be two kinds of hedges there, the quickset and the dry hedges; the first were by far the most important, and they, in turn, were divided into hedges of defense, shelter, orchard, and fodder. Built for the protection of property, the defense hedges usually were made up with thorny shrubs; shelter hedges also were defensive, but had the further purpose of serving as windbreaks, and their timber yielded wood for building or heating. If the trees were for producing fruit, then the hedgerows were "orchard," and the fodder hedges contained any number of varieties of shrubs and trees. The hedgerow system seems to have dated at least from the time of the Romans. Now the main purpose of the hedgerows, whatever their origin, came to be protection against shellfire and bullets. In any case those earth and plant fences enclosed fields – usually meadows or orchards – of irregular shapes and sizes which seemed to average toward a rectangle about 100 yards long and 50 yards wide. "An aerial photograph of a typical section of Normandy shows more than 3,900 hedged enclosures in an area of less than eight square miles."

By digging down a deep foxhole – a covered one – behind these hedgerows, the defender could make himself almost immune from all kinds of small arms or shellfire. But that was not his only, nor his greatest advantage. There was the observation which he had denied his attackers but enjoyed himself. He could have his guns zeroed in, put an observer up in a tree and wait. The attacker, on the other hand, usually could not see more than one hedgerow ahead, and could almost never see any enemy activity, and when he discovered the enemy’s presence, by suddenly finding himself pinned down by enemy fire, he was too close to employ his artillery. At the same time, the enemy found that these hedgerows provided him with covered routes for supply and evacuation and withdrawal. There were numerous roads and lanes – always running between hedgerows – leading away in all directions. Frequently these would be considerably below the level of the adjacent fields, while the walls formed by the hedgerows would be just that much higher. Often the rows of trees would bend toward each other overhead and thus completely conceal the route from air observation.

Rifle platoons, during those last days of training, practiced at making attacks in which the squads used their Browning automatic rifles to "spray" the hedgerow running parallel to the front while a few men with grenades worked their way up the lateral hedgerows. Sometimes a squad would remain at the base of fire while the other squads worked forward on either side of the hedgerow toward the front, or sometimes smaller groups would work forward, always with support of machine guns.

It was evident that tanks were going to have a difficult time moving across that kind of terrain – the hedgerows were too strong for an ordinary medium tank to force, and unquestionably all the roads would be mined and covered by anti-tank guns. Battalion ammunition and pioneer officers experimented to see what kind of a charge of TNT it would take to blast a hole for the "iron horses." They found that it could be done, though it took a big explosion and sometimes a second; but it seemed that this might be a solution.

Combat History of the 134th Infantry Regiment, by Major General Butler B. Miltonberger (former Commanding Officer of the 134th Infantry Regiment)

http://www.coulthart.com/134/combat_history_index.htm

Hasty German foxholes behind a hedgerow:

[Bannon DC]

I better jump in again before this thread hits 300.

So, after all the pissing and moaning, everyone can agree that immediately visible foxholes will suck. This will lead to ridiculously "gamey" situations. Maybe foxholes will be "fixed" in a future CMx2 release. Otherwise, the game is "broken" as far as foxholes are concerned.

Trenches... some people believe that immediately visible trenches are OK and others believe they will still suck no matter what.

For me, I really can't see the how "lighting up" a defensive position is realistic. It is without a doubt something that will ALWAYS detract from the realism and fun of the game. Clearly, an advancing company did not know where every enemy foxhole and dug out was located.

From a scenario design view, all I can see it "meeting engagements-R-us." I can see many players shunning scenarios with foxholes and trenches because of the every present balance issue.

Does a scenario have foxholes/trenches? Then artillery on the attacking side would be unfair.

Does a scenario have foxholes/trenches? Then the designer should provide extra foxholes so as to create decoy positions.

Does a scenario have foxholes/trenches? So much for trying to surprise your opponent with a clever ambush.

Does a scenario have foxholes/trenches? We'll pretend that enemy intelligence is omnipotent and they could here you digging in overnight... down to have a completely accurate location of your hole

Does a scenario have foxholes/trenches? Pretend that the enemy is always incompetent and can't hide himself.

Does a scenario have foxholes/trenches? Well this makes it a little harder for a platoon to defend against an attacking company. Maybe the defender should have an extra platoon.

Does a scenario have foxholes/trenches? Can't you just set your units in buildings instead of in hedgerows?

Does a scenario have foxholes/trenches? Why do you need a foxhole to defend that critical road junction anyway? The enemy knows you will be there anyway... there IS a flag right on top of it.

West Wall anyone? The allies knew where every trench, bunker, and foxhole was back in 1940.

Hurtgen Forest? Allied aerial reconnaissance has penetrated the “dark forest” and can spot every one-man position. Just pretend, OK?

I really hope this can be fixed in future releases because this is a feature that will dog this game as long as it exists. It is a real distraction from the “fun value” of the game.

[McIvan]

You need to read the thread Bannon. There's been progress made, for sure. In particular, it seems we will have FOW for foxholes and gun emplacements, which is good news. We may also have forms of dugouts (not foxholes) that are proof against 105mm arty and lighter.

[Michael Emrys]

Hasty German foxholes behind a hedgerow:

And you can see what I mean about not moving the spoil away from the hole when dug in a hurry. It's a dead giveaway once the enemy gets an LOS on it.

Michael

[Michael Emrys]

Does a scenario have foxholes/trenches? Then artillery on the attacking side would be unfair.

That's assuming that a shell is going to drop in most if not every foxhole or trench. I don't recall that artillery was all that deadly in CMx1 against dug in troops. Mostly all it did was force them to keep their heads down, and even then not entirely. I laid in some pretty heavy barrages on defensive lines and still got a lot of return fire when my infantry started advancing.

The most effective use of artillery in my experience was against infantry moving in wooded areas which allowed treebursts to occur, and even then it would take several turns to wipe out, say, a platoon. Usually, my artillery would run out of alloted rounds of fire before that occurred.

Michael

[Lanzfeld]

You need to read the thread Bannon. There's been progress made, for sure. In particular, it seems we will have FOW for foxholes and gun emplacements, which is good news. We may also have forms of dugouts (not foxholes) that are proof against 105mm arty and lighter.

Dont jump the gun McIvan. Steve said they MAY be able to do something about the foxhole FOW. No promises.

[Battlefront.com]

MacIvan,

You need to read the thread Bannon.

Which is why threads of this length start to become counter-productive By the time it gets this long the Johny Come Latelys don't take the time to catch up on the whole thing and post something that was relevant perhaps 10 pages earlier where they stopped reading. And who can blame them? Reading a DENSE topic of this length could take HOURS.

I've been thinking recently that 300 posts is too long for such discussions. I'm thinking of capping it at 150 or 200 and forcing a new thread to start up with a summary of what the end state of the previous thread was. That way people can jump in late and NOT force us to go back over the same thing again and again.

Anyway, this discussion shouldn't be going on here anyway since we already have a dedicated discussion of this topic at this thread here. I've marked the latest page as of writing this so people can see what the state of affairs is.

Therefore, I'm closing this one up and in the future will do as I outlined above. Monster threads like this aren't in the best interests of a clear and clean discussion, so I'm going to try this new method for a while and see how it goes. Thanks for a great discussion here and those who are still interested can go to the other thread to continue it there.

Thanks!

Steve