Jump to content

Elvis vs. JonS DAR Discussion Thread


Recommended Posts

Hey Zeus. I go to sleep for a few hours and wake up to the thread and it's already 3 pages long.

I'll start things off with my own observation and see what these fine gentlemen have to say about it.

Elvis, were you surprised post-game to see how little forces Jon had in places compared to what you thought during the battle?

Steve

I was very shocked at how little he had left on Hill 144. It looks like he still had plenty of Hill 154 but I had been picturing forces of that size on both hills.

In case it hasn't been said enough or apparent in the screen shots, the woods were extremely dense. Visibility was only 10-15m most of the time. If he set up with a hiding with a close fire arc he could tear me apart before my men even knew he was there. And each time one of these exchanges happened he seemed to disappear into the woods. I would then stumble across men in a different location. Looking at it now they could very well have been the same units. No matter how small the advance I made through the woods it felt like I immediately ran into SMG and grenade fire. It got to the point where I didn't even bother advancing through the woods at all. If you think back to the 4 doomed Shermans on Hill 154, they couldn't see anything and they were right in the woods. 20m from where all the killing was going on. So even after I knocked out the 2 AT guns and the JPz IVs there was little reason to risk bringing the remaining tanks up to the hills to work on eliminating infantry. There is an old football expression that only 3 things can happen when you pass the ball and 2 of them are bad. I had that feeling about chasing infantry in the woods toward the end. I'd either kill nothing, get hit with a schreck or faust or knock off a few more Germans. 2 of them were bad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 291
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

And each time one of these exchanges happened he seemed to disappear into the woods.

I think JonS appeared to use hit and run tactics using HUNT command and then QUICK or something to retreat all to be executed within the 1 min window. Would be interested to know the exact make up on the commands that were using JonS , appeared to be really effective.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was going to say the same thing.

In CMx1 there is a real art to making a "balanced" scenario: one where each side has a reasonable chance to win if they play well. I had been thinking that the flexible victory conditions might ease this task ... but maybe they add more variables and make it even harder!

Time will tell I guess.

While I appreciate the sentiment, and recognise that folk can get _overly_ hung up on scores, the scores are there for a reason. If there was no point to them we wouldn't bother having them at all. So... wrong is wrong, and avoiding wrong is a tough task for a scenario designer! There is no point in saying "well, if they are completely wrong, who cares". Competitive players care...

GaJ

I think you may be misreading Jons comment. When I first read it I thought he was talking about this battle in particular, not scores in more general terms. He knows there were flaws in how he set up the victory points in the battle we played and doesn't want people to get too hung up on that.

I am only speaking for him because he'll be sleeping for a while still I have noticed a few comments on his comment and thought I would right things before they went astray. And, of course, if I am the one who misread his comment then he'll be along to set me straight. I don't doubt that no one can understand a word he says. Being a Kiwi, by the time English made it to his part of the world it was barely recognizable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I feel vaguely uneasy about the sniper's performance, to be honest. JonS reports that he achieved roughly 1/7 of his total kills, and looking at the victory screen, that would be somewhere around 35 casualties (or 21, if considering only the killed, rather than all casualties). It's not an impossible figure, but it's really up there--IIRC, Simo Häyhä achieved no more than 25 kills a day. What was the range of that engagement, and did the rifle platoon manage to spot the sniper while they were pinned down?

No. The rifle squads rarely got a clean look at the sniper. Perhaps if we had been playing RT I would have had a better chance. While watching the "movie" of the turn sometimes the sniper would appear in my LOS but by the time the movie was over he'd be gone again. Because of that all I could do was use area fire to target the spot where he had been seen. Because of the condition of the troops when fired on they would cower, very briefly most of the time, and that would break the area fire command.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In CM1, I seem to remember there was a requirement, an understanding for want of a better word, to have forces of each side roughly balanced so as to ensure each side would have a fair fight.

In real life, of course, you'll rarely have this luxury of balanced forces for each side. One side will invariably have more infantry, more machine guns, more mortars, more tanks, more everything else.

In CMBN, will the requirement for balanced forces for each side be still critical or desirable so as to ensure a fair fight?

Is the fact that CMX2 engine permits each side to have different objectives that allows for a scenario designer to put in unbalanced forces. So for example, all the German side has to do is deny a certain area to the US side for the stipulated amount of time and he will win although he has few forces in order to complete the task.

With improvements in the game for CMX2, would it still come down to simply better skills, marshalling of available forces and a bit of luck that will ensure an acceptable result?

Great game by the way, JonS and Elvis. Looking forward to more if there's more on the way.

Dan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Scottie,

" guess all im trying to say is that if you are a company commander and you knew your troops the AAR (as JonS pointed) out wouldnt have run so long."

All my reading of WWI and WWII combat suggests to me that untis kept going on long after anyone alive today would think sensible, or even possible. There was just a different mind-set in play.

That said, the reason attacks broke down, despite the urgings of battalion, company or even platoon leaders was when the surviing troops themselves said "F*ck this for a game of soldiers", went for cover and refused to be rallied. CM1 modelled ths quite well with the idea of global morale - take too many casualties and your people stopped listening. It isn't clear to me how well CMx2 replicates this.

I have seen very many instances where the Syrians have surrendered. Indeed towrds the end I stopped thinking about taking objectives and just concentrated on killing as many of the enemy as I could as this was easier and seemed to achieve better results. However, as the "allies" I have never had a situation when my men refused to do as they were told.

So in an Normandy context I would not worry about units that soldier on despite heavy cadualties as long as the game does enforcre some limits. Such limits should be dependent on starting morale, unit training and the battle context.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No. The rifle squads rarely got a clean look at the sniper. Perhaps if we had been playing RT I would have had a better chance. While watching the "movie" of the turn sometimes the sniper would appear in my LOS but by the time the movie was over he'd be gone again. Because of that all I could do was use area fire to target the spot where he had been seen. Because of the condition of the troops when fired on they would cower, very briefly most of the time, and that would break the area fire command.

Great comments, guys and good game. Barring a few tweaks, this engine seems to be getting WWII tactical combat about "right". I feel that in a RL fight German artillery fire would have become a much larger factor once Elvis bogged down without taking the high ground, but that's a scenario design (and also player) choice.

In light of Elvis' comments above about not having time to react to the sniper in WEGO mode, is it time to reconsider 30 or 45 second WEGO turns? I know it would compound the file load for PBEM, but the extra flexibility would seem worth it at this point given the increasingly refined nature of the engine.

The ultimate solution is of course to play RT instead, which I now do mostly, but when there's an entire battalion to coordinate on a map with dense cover that isn't always desirable, especially in player vs player. One of BFC's founding principles is "No Clickfest", (aka "I shouldn't lose to a 9 year old who has simply played the game for a zillion hours and memorized the interface").

As an alternative, is it possible to add a feature for 2 player RT play where either player can hit PAUSE at any time to catch his breath, but then play only resumes once both players hit ESC? (the other player would get a prompt or sumfink).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

'Cat, re: beaten zone

No, not exactly, but the effect is the same. When I had my HMGs on Hill 144 chattering away across the valley onto Hill 154 the rounds were impacting +/- 10 to 15m for range and lateral around the nominal point of aim. Also, the 'area of effect' seemed to extend beyond that. So, even when there was no nominated target except a point in the ground my MGs were still spreading the love around.

OTOH, I asked Elvis about that later, and he reckons he never noticed :o I guess in the end I was just brassing up an empty piece of forest :D

I didn't notice him ever firing a MG into Hill 154. It had no effect (how could hear it over the exploding potato mashers). The MG on Hill 148 did suppress my infantry advances across the open fields on either side of the main road into the Villa. As Jon says it may not have resulted in many kills but it slow down my advance. And you may have noticed that as soon as I felt all the major AT assets had been silenced I went right after that MG on Hill 148. And it didn't take long once I did. Ditto the MG on Hill 144 when he started popping off again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The ratio of KIA to wounded seems off. I would expect it to be the other way 'round. But every action is unique, I guess. What is it on average over many battles?

I can remember many CMSF battles with more KIA then WIA.

I always thought it should be the other way (more WIA then KIA) but for some reason in CMx2 it looks like most time you will see more KIA.

Scottie,

That said, the reason attacks broke down, despite the urgings of battalion, company or even platoon leaders was when the surviing troops themselves said "F*ck this for a game of soldiers", went for cover and refused to be rallied. CM1 modelled ths quite well with the idea of global morale - take too many casualties and your people stopped listening. It isn't clear to me how well CMx2 replicates this.

Yeah, would be interesting if the Normandy game will have a better (or just a different) Morale system then Shock Force.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fundamentally troops are too willing to continue to engage in combat, because their commanders - all of us, as players - don't really care whether those little pixeltruppen live or die. We continue to mash our virtual troops together long after real soldiers would have called it quits.

I'll be interested to find out how I play this. I recall that in playing TacOps the challenge for me was to obliterate the red force while suffering no casualties of my own. But in playing CMx1 I was forced to accept some casualties. Even there though, if a squad or platoon had absorbed enough casualties to seriously affect their morale and/or firepower, I would pull them back into reserve and only use them to occupy positions captured by fresh troops. Seems to me that exposing damaged units to additional combat is only handing points to your opponent. Of course, there are times when you have no choice. Still, I am hoping that force preservation can be importantly reflected in the victory conditions.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Im not sure it was the necessity of this battle or something agreed before or the 'rules' have changed, but the one and only time i used exploded tanker crews as a scout force against Ron i was politely informed this was most ungentlemanly - is it something you guys thought was acceptable, or was this more of a test than a full on, teeth gritted competitive game?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Still, I am hoping that force preservation can be importantly reflected in the victory conditions.

Michael

Force preservation is very much an available victory condition. It is up to the scenario designer to include it or not. I believe every German campaign battle in NATO had a thresholds of 10% and 15% friendly casualties. Imagine how I struggled with that! But it is a percentage that can be set in the battle parameters. I actually wish Jon had used that rather than what he chose for casualties.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Im not sure it was the necessity of this battle or something agreed before or the 'rules' have changed, but the one and only time i used exploded tanker crews as a scout force against Ron i was politely informed this was most ungentlemanly - is it something you guys thought was acceptable, or was this more of a test than a full on, teeth gritted competitive game?

He called me a gamey bastige when he saw my jeep driver doing recon on Hill 144. The tank crews were not used as scouts on Hill 154. They were mostly hiding and at times moved along the woods edge to be human tripwires in case he sent infantry toward my remaining Sherman on the hill. But I don't remember ordering them to advance into the woods looking for Germans. By that point I knew finding them would be a death sentence and needed all the bodies I could get on that hill.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The global moral issues in CM1 were impressive. In CMSF it does seem as if the allied forces are akin to supermen - always obeying orders, fighting to the death. But, that may be a political issue since the game environment is too close for comfort to today's situation and in deference to the high % of mil profs. in this market.

It would be nice if WW2 cold return to the era of draftees who are mostly less motivated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nobody has asked a question about this but I do want to post a thought or 2 about my initial assault on Hill 154.

That was one of the most fun combined arms things I have ever done in 30+ years of playing war games. Two things ultimately doomed it. When I reached the woods edge I should have stopped and regrouped at once. I didn't I thought I was going deeper into the woods for safety and it was anything but. The other was the timing. Had been able to make the move 2 or 3 turns earlier I may have also been able to set up a stronger position in the trees. I wasn't able to do that because I had planned to assault when my artillery began to fall.

But organizing the covering fire for the advance, setting the arty to arrive near the edge, getting the Shermans in place to cover the entire field with smoke and putting the troops in place to launch the move. It was fantastic fun. And watching it come together so perfectly that I committed a second platoon, 4 Shermans and the field guns to the advance was exhilarating. Watching it all fall apart in the kill zones of those woods was a serious bummer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The global moral issues in CM1 were impressive. In CMSF it does seem as if the allied forces are akin to supermen - always obeying orders, fighting to the death. But, that may be a political issue since the game environment is too close for comfort to today's situation and in deference to the high % of mil profs. in this market.

It would be nice if WW2 cold return to the era of draftees who are mostly less motivated.

I think in CMSF you that more because of how much easier it is for Allied forces to remain in C2. Once that breaks down for the Syrians (or the US and German forces in our AAR) you start to have problems.....especially if your troops get beat up on too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CM1 modelled ths quite well with the idea of global morale - take too many casualties and your people stopped listening. It isn't clear to me how well CMx2 replicates this.

I think the AAR reflected quite well how CMx2 handles this. In the face of considerable casualties Elvis had troops surrendering quite often. In fact as Elvis admits he was constantly having to rally(rescue) these broken(surrendering) troops to get them going again. I also think that Armor close by should itself help to rally(rescue), broken(surrendering) troops. There should be no need to dismount crews to rally(rescue) them.

Btw as you can tell, I don't care for the terms surrender & rescued at this point maybe calling them broken & rallied and a different animation to show that. After the troops are broken(surrendering) if they aren't rallied(rescued) then they assume a surrender posture and put their hands up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have some questions for Elvis or JonS that may or may not be covered by NDA:

How do you currently "rescue" surrendering troops in the game? Is there a command that you must issue to cause this to happen or does this happen automatically when non- surrendering troops are close enough?

Also does the morale and or C2 of the rescuing troops play a part in the success of this rescue attempt?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nobody has asked a question about this but I do want to post a thought or 2 about my initial assault on Hill 154.

That was one of the most fun combined arms things I have ever done in 30+ years of playing war games. Two things ultimately doomed it. When I reached the woods edge I should have stopped and regrouped at once. I didn't I thought I was going deeper into the woods for safety and it was anything but. The other was the timing. Had been able to make the move 2 or 3 turns earlier I may have also been able to set up a stronger position in the trees. I wasn't able to do that because I had planned to assault when my artillery began to fall.

But organizing the covering fire for the advance, setting the arty to arrive near the edge, getting the Shermans in place to cover the entire field with smoke and putting the troops in place to launch the move. It was fantastic fun. And watching it come together so perfectly that I committed a second platoon, 4 Shermans and the field guns to the advance was exhilarating. Watching it all fall apart in the kill zones of those woods was a serious bummer.

A funny thing just happened. I was doing some chores and trying to remember what orders I gave my troops when they reached the woods on 154. And I am pretty sure I gave them the "Quick" order to run them into the safety of the woods!!!!

When I came back to the computer to post about it Jon asked me the same question!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have some questions for Elvis or JonS that may or may not be covered by NDA:

How do you currently "rescue" surrendering troops in the game? Is there a command that you must issue to cause this to happen or does this happen automatically when non- surrendering troops are close enough?

To rescue a man you need to have a healthy unit in it's area. And the enemy threat has to be neutralized or the friendly units have to have overwhelming numbers around the surrendering guy(s). But there is no command in the menu to do it. It is similar to buddy aid in that way. The TacAI will take care of it.

Also does the morale and or C2 of the rescuing troops play a part in the success of this rescue attempt?

Yes. Your rescuers have a much greater chance of success when they are healthy of mind and body and in C2. They can have lower morale and be out of C2 but the cause of the surrender may be a greater force.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

*yawn* uh ... wassup?

Re: surrender

I your troops have had enough they'll put their hands up. You'll have seen that pose quite a bit in the AAR pics. At this stage they are attempting to surrender, and neither side can give them orders - they're considered to be out of command. They will continue to offer their surrender until one of two things happen,

1) the owning side regains control of them. There is no order for this, it's more of a 'force field' situation. If the owning player can get enough of his own good-order forces close enough, or push back the enemy, the guys attempting to surrender will pick up their weapons and carry on. Having an HQ in the mix there helps too.

2) if the owning player cannot manage that, and the enemy forces remain close and powerful, after a couple of minutes a white flag will appear over the guys attempting to surrender. It's at that point that unit is considered to have surrendered, and they vanish.

Soldiers attempting t surrender can quite easily be killed. A couple of times I noticed my riflemen continuing to fire at or near guys with their hands up.

edit: haha - snap!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And as a practical matter, both surrender and routing are effectively impossible/unthinkable in the US's current conflicts.
This is very true,nothing motivates a soldier to fight on no matter what then knowing that surrender will lead to certain death at the hands of some Taliban fighter that doesn't care about Geneva convention articles,or rules of War.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...