Jump to content

Infantry Don't Bennfit From Low Walls


Recommended Posts

Check your friendly map edge directions, and make sure the map edge behind the troops is set back some distance (the AI wants to move a minimum distance when it flees, so a close map edge can cause them to go other directions than back).

To eliminate rifle grenades, why not set it up as Fusiliers facing Fusiliers? That said, I don't really feel this is a valid test of anything in particular as it does not control well for all factors ("let's see who wins" tests tend to be problematic for providing useful data). Regardless, the cover provided by a low wall is highly situational, not absolute, and the absolute conclusion that behind a low wall is a worse position than prone in open ground is flat out wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 196
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Troops silhouetted against the sky are more likely to be wounded (not killed, mind) than troops who are hugging the ground, is what I take away from the posted statistics, and that doesn't seem wrong. Ricochets and rifle grenade fragments both favor the men on the ground. Explicit *cover* may be less for prone troops, but exposure to incidental damage is greatly reduced.

Walls may not have been mentioned specifically by the diagram someone posted earlier, but boulders were. Do you think the Army's advice about walls differed ever so much from that about boulders? Peek around the sides, don't pop over the top. Otherwise you're spotted more easily and your entire frame is higher up, ready to catch all of the fun little bits of metal that fling themselves around during a firefight.

Mind you I don't represent any final say from Battlefront, I'm just offering my opinion of what all of this boils down to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

*shrug*

I'm just putting out the data. If the general consensus is that it really is better to have no cover at all in a firefight than be behind a low stone wall, then so be it. It saves me the trouble of setting up c3k's test suggestion.

That said, I don't really feel this is a valid test of anything in particular as it does not control well for all factors ("let's see who wins" tests tend to be problematic for providing useful data). Regardless, the cover provided by a low wall is highly situational, not absolute, and the absolute conclusion that behind a low wall is a worse position than prone in open ground is flat out wrong.

I disagree. The test shows that using a low stone wall as cover during a firefight is more likely to get your men hit than having no cover, provided the circumstances are otherwise similar to the test. To dismiss the results as meaningless is absurd.

But, hey, if any of my future PBEM opponents are reading this please do feel free to disregard and put your guys behind walls. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regardless, the cover provided by a low wall is highly situational, not absolute...

The problem we have then is knowing, within the context of the game mechanics, what those situations are when walls provide better or worse cover. To my mind, such information is fundamental to good tactics, but the manual seems to be very vague when it comes to what provides good cover and concealment.

From other posts I gather that certain cover can have abstracted elements, so the question is, do low walls have an abstracted element of cover? If not, perhaps the height of the wall could be raised a little to come up to just below the rifle as I doubt anyone firing from behind a wall would do so in the way the game animation shows, which unnecessarily exposes too much of the upper torso.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to confess, those test results are not what I'd expect to see either. I can understand that folks looking over a wall are more likely to be spotted than troops prone in the open. But that's a different situation from them being as equally vulnerable (or more so) as an enemy force prone in the open. This means that 'prone in the open' is marginally better than 'kneeling behind a wall'. I'd have expected the guys behind the wall to have some advantage in a fire fight over the guys on the ground.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your results are interesting, with all the implications of that word. However, it just means a more rigorous test should be done. Doing more iterations with various tweaks will not gain any "credibility". (Meaning, you've raised a point. Your test does not address the issue.)

For example, if some poor sap wanted to test Tiger accuracy compared to Sherman accuracy, he might put 10 of each against each other. Every test will show about 10 Tigers looking at 10 smoking wrecks of Shermans. That would not test accuracy.

Instead, each vehicle would have to fire, wait for it...at the same target. This eliminates silhouette differences. Also, each would have to have the same parameters while firing: pinned, nervous, etc. The only way to eliminate variables would then be to have them fire at EMPTY targets. (Use Shermans and have the crew BAIL OUT for both Tigers and Shermans.) Now, you've got a test for in-game accuracy of Tigers compared to Shermans.

In a similar vein, it's obvious that walls create an asymmetry. By testing each unit against each other, rather than in isolation, you're testing a very specific case of survivability when going toe to toe against each other. Again, you've raised an issue which seems, prima facia, to have an counter-intuitive result. Is it "wrong"? More testing, of a more focused nature, is needed.

Ken

Edited to add: My personal outlook upon reading your results is to agree with you: a unit in the open fighting a unit behind a wall should be at a disadvantage. It's time to dig into it and find out what's producing that result. Is the wall modelled on hollow cinderblocks? Is the wall modelling stone fragments wounding soldiers? Is there some ricochet effect which is causing this? Etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well maybe I will try setting up your test, then. We'll see what happens.

Thanks. And if you think of a better/different approach, obviously you should try it. I am unable to test it myself for over a week. Real life and all that. If you can make savegame files of your results, that would be beneficial.

Thank you for sticking with it and not getting offended about all the questions.

Ken

Link to comment
Share on other sites

*shrug*

I'm just putting out the data. If the general consensus is that it really is better to have no cover at all in a firefight than be behind a low stone wall, then so be it. It saves me the trouble of setting up c3k's test suggestion.

I disagree. The test shows that using a low stone wall as cover during a firefight is more likely to get your men hit than having no cover, provided the circumstances are otherwise similar to the test. To dismiss the results as meaningless is absurd.

But, hey, if any of my future PBEM opponents are reading this please do feel free to disregard and put your guys behind walls. :D

I've been playing around with a couple different tests trying to understand when and how to make the best use of foxholes and how strongly unit experience and motivation influence their effectiveness. As it happens I ended up running a test using the rough stone wall with foxholes assuming the added concealment and protection of the wall would enhance the foxhole similar to placing them in a wooded area. What I found was somewhat different.

I created 48 firing ranges each 250 meters by 80 meters. In each range was a regular US squad versus a German HMG team set up as follows.

2 each in foxhole behind rough wall

Exp Motivation

Veteran High

Veteran Regular

Veteran Low

Veteran poor

Regular High

Regular Regular

Regular low

Regular Poor

Green High

Green Regular

Green Low

Green Poor

2 each in foxhole no wall cover

Veteran High

Veteran Regular

Veteran Low

Veteran poor

Regular High

Regular Regular

Regular low

Regular Poor

Green High

Green Regular

Green Low

Green Poor

The stone wall did not make an appreciable difference. All units were spotted by GIs almost immediately and taken under fire. Veteran High morale MG units were only ones that seemed to hold their own.

I have not done a blue on blue as I wasn't really looking to investigate the same issue you are looking into, but what I found seems to correspond with what you are seeing. I can try and duplicate what you are testing and run 48 iterations at a time to accumulate more data quickly.

Question, do you have any stats on number of times you have run and results? I think that would contribute to pointing out what is potentially one off data versus a statistcal probability of what is going to happen.

I would like to hear some input from BF to see if my perception that a wall is good cover is simply flawed to begin with. There were various threads prior about the penetrating power of WW 2 rifles and it could simply be the wall is having soldiers assume a more upright posture behind a position that offers more concealment than actual cover. That would suck. I hate getting my pixeltruppen shot. :-P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting stuff, sburke.

Question, do you have any stats on number of times you have run and results? I think that would contribute to pointing out what is potentially one off data versus a statistcal probability of what is going to happen.

I have posted the results already. The first test was run 40 times, the seconds one 20 times.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting stuff, sburke.

I have posted the results already. The first test was run 40 times, the seconds one 20 times.

Thanks sorry, haven't had a chance to go through much of the thread, just the topic and the initial comments and it made me think about what I had seen on the scenarios I was testing.

I just did a run through blue on blue at 250 meters with a low rough wall three times. (Again I am running 48 separate instances each test).

First test I let run for 3 turns, 2nd and 3rd tests for 6 turns. In watching the first run through I started wondering if perhaps the wall as I believe you had suggested earlier would enable troops to cower and possibly recover in relative safety and that a cumulative affect would be to allow more sustained firepower until the opposing force finally broke. The second round didn't pan out that way. I then ran a 3rd round which seemed to lean towards what I thought I was seeing in the first test. There was a 50% higher casualty rate for the troops in the open.

I will run this a bunch more to see if it bears out what I am beginning to suspect. A wall is not a huge advantage but if you can establish fire superiority quickly enough it can have a much larger impact as your units don't suffer as much from suppression. It is more a cumulative impact rather than an immediate effect.

What I have not seen is a larger casualty rate from being behind the wall. At best the forces in the open could achieve parity. What I need to look at now is some detail. What is happening to all these squads, what is the state of suppression etc.

Also as a side note, only the units behind the walls semed to be able to fire off rifle grenades. I suspect that prone units can't use them so that does present one advantage for the wall. At 250 meters though it didn't look like they were very effective. Lots of shorts. I'll try running a bunch of tests at different ranges as well to see what effect that has.

Test 1 - 3 turns

Squad w/o wall Squad w/ wall

Dead 89 57

Wnd 98 108

Test 2 - 6 turns

Squad w/o wall Squad w/ wall

Dead 135 121

Wnd 119 139

Test 3 - 6 turns

Squad w/o wall Squad w/ wall

Dead 143 92

Wnd 144 119

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Troops in the open do fire off there rifle grenades at a 140 metre distant wall though accuracy is variable. In the tests I did it was using Vanir's fanatics so is possibly not that representative.

What does seem to be coming out is that troop quality is hugely important in the results. Whilst this may score great in the realism stakes I am not sure ultimately how user friendly this is if designers do not prime the scenario players.

To be fair in one of my current games I am told they are rubbish but I have no idea if my opponents troops are equal rubbish worse rubbish or excellent. Whilst this is no doubt exellent FoW I am left wondering how well my scenario designer understands the game mechanics.

I do wonder if the ever so important suppression model reflects modern combat training.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Troops in the open do fire off there rifle grenades at a 140 metre distant wall though accuracy is variable. In the tests I did it was using Vanir's fanatics so is possibly not that representative.

What does seem to be coming out is that troop quality is hugely important in the results. Whilst this may score great in the realism stakes I am not sure ultimately how user friendly this is if designers do not prime the scenario players.

To be fair in one of my current games I am told they are rubbish but I have no idea if my opponents troops are equal rubbish worse rubbish or excellent. Whilst this is no doubt exellent FoW I am left wondering how well my scenario designer understands the game mechanics.

I do wonder if the ever so important suppression model reflects modern combat training.

Good questions both and honestly though I automatically try to be more watchful of units that are not at least regular, I really am not sure how marked the differences are under various conditions. With several variables in experience, morale, fitness and leadership bonuses there is a lot of variety to work with. I tested with all regular units, regular normal morale, fit and no leader bonuses to get as much a plain vanilla baseline as possible. I'll try to have more results with a deeper review tonight.

One item I will be looking at in my testing is how influential is it as to whom in a squad is hit. For example if watching your squad commander go down affects the units status to a larger degree (which I would assume it would) then luck can also play a very important role in this testing. If a squad immediately loses a leader or a BAR guy, the impact could be such that they never get to take advantage of whatever benefits the wall might give.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What does seem to be coming out is that troop quality is hugely important in the results. Whilst this may score great in the realism stakes I am not sure ultimately how user friendly this is if designers do not prime the scenario players.

How experience impacts game play is a really important to understand, and is overlooked by a lot of players. I am not sure it's the job of scenario designers to explain that. Maybe it could be emphasized more in the manual, I am not entirely sure why it gets dismissed/overlooked so easily.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I started running additional tests today - some notes on my testing ground that will be important to understand.

I have 3 rows of 16 firing ranges all divided by high walls. The outer portion was left open. After all why would I need to touch the map edge right? So as I am testing one thing I noticed that was also happening last night was the units on the outside map perimeter (north for the guys behind the wall, south for the guys without the wall) from sides suffered more heavily than the other units. The guys behind the low wall were on the outside edge on the north map edge and those squads would all almost routinely be in shaken or broken state after 5 minutes while the squads behind the wall in the middle and southern map edge would normally be in much better shape.

I scratched my head for a minute and then thought about that army manual Broadsword posted and a chill went up my back. I then added a wall on the northern map edge.

Here are the results of the 3 tests today

--------wall------No Wall

Test-dead--wnd--dead--wnd----Notes

1-----95---104---131--132

2-----31----74---158--151----with wall added behind Nothern squads team

3-----40----49---152--158----with wall added behind Nothern squads team

There was an immediate drop in causalty rate with a wall now BEHIND them. With more units surviving the inital shooting those squads now got to add their firepower causing an increase in the casualty rate of the guys not behind the wall. There was only one conclusion I can logically make from this. These guys were silhouetted from the skyline. Will somebody at BFC tell me if you were that freakin crazy to include this? I find it almost spooky, cool but spooky. I intend to run some more tests to see if these results are consistent. If they are I learned one lesson about this game. There is a heckuva lot more under the hood than I even remotely suspected.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I asked specifically awhile back and was told there was no concealment penalty for units "skylined" on terrain in relation to the enemy. I am having a hard time visually the setup you are describing. Can you post a screen?

Can do, I hope these help.

This is an overhead view of the full range. I have steeples to divide the long axis of the firing ranges to prevent any possible fire from the ranges behind or in front.

Q5lkT.jpg

This is the north map border with the walls added on the perimeter behind where the unit is placed.

eUkRo.jpg

Here is a close up of the unit placement with a tall wall now behind them

oaqla.jpg

This is an overview of an exercise in process

eGd5J.jpg

I have found it useful to be able to acquire a larger amount of sample data and if I am feeling a little nuts I can review each iteration individually. The last row which includes the unit close up had no wall prior. Those units as I ran the test suffered much more heavily than the units in the other two rows who always had the divider wall behind them.

I ran one more test while getting these screenshots and the results were similar - The guys behind the wall: 41 dead /74 wounded The guys in the open 153 dead /130 wounded. There may be another explanation, I just have no idea what it might be. The only one that comes to mind is an issue of visibility as the wall behind them can't offer protection, if anything I would think there might be more richochet casualties. Sorry about the size of the screenshots. I was using CS3 and this slick little tool for posting images on the web, but ran into a license issue when I tried to load on the new PC I built for CMBN (yeah I was just nuts enough to do that). I am playing around with Gimp, but am very unfamiliar with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pretty amazing if it actually simulates skylining. I would love some sort of training mode where you could actually see all the bonuses/penalties in a given situation - even down to individual rounds. I'd never want to play that way (it would destroy any sense of realism), but it would really help figure things out.

Anyone remember how Sid Meier's Civil War games actually showed you the various modifiers for your troops? Or even the Total War games where there was a little blurb when you hovered the cursor over your troops ("Encouraged by General close by", etc).

I'm an old (since 1978) wargamer, and so I sort of crave this kind of reassurance that what is going on "under the hood" actually makes sense.

PS - It sucks being a "Junior Member", since I started playing the CMBO demo when it first came out (I was in med school and that damn demo distracted me to the point of almost causing academic issues!). Oh well - I never had time to visit the forums but I've been playing this series from the very moment it was available. Big Fan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

PS - It sucks being a "Junior Member", since I started playing the CMBO demo when it first came out (I was in med school and that damn demo distracted me to the point of almost causing academic issues!). Oh well - I never had time to visit the forums but I've been playing this series from the very moment it was available. Big Fan.

LOL I hear ya. I had like one post to my credit prior to the announcement there would be a Normandy based CMx2 game. In no time I was a "senior" member. Glad I hit that before being listed as a senile member.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I decided to alter the test ranges to focus more directly on this issue of silhouettes. The attached test range is configured with 20 ranges all in one row. Half of the ranges have the additional wall behind the units positioned behind the wall and half are without. I then ran the test for 5 rounds.

Test 1

Total casualties for those behind the wall were 34 killed 45 wounded - 79 total

Total casualties for those in the open were --- 36 killed 28 wounded - 64 total

Of the total casualties suffered by those behind the wall 64 of the 79 were suffered by those without the wall behind them.

Test 2

Total casualties for those behind the wall were 34 killed 38 wounded - 72 total

Total casualties for those in the open were --- 34 killed 34 wounded - 68 total

Of the total casualties suffered by those behind the wall 48 of the 72 were suffered by those without the wall behind them.

Whether or not it is actually a silhouette issue, the question of whether a wall provides additional protection seems dependent on something else here. Simply positioned behind the wall they are struggling to maintain parity. With a wall behind them they suffer significantly fewer casualties showing a very clear advantage over units in the open. (All units in the open do have a wall behind them). In the case of the squads behind the wall 50% of the units are suffering 80% of the casualties.

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/30964082/Aberdeen%20Blue%20on%20Blue%20ver%202.btt

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...