Rob Deans

"You can get smoke from 81s and 120s" The primary use for the Two Inch mortar was smoke.........The teeny weeny HE bombs were like grenades. Mind you, the 60mm bombs aren't that much bigger. Rob Deans

" isn't a whole lot of low level resource materials out there for CM's level of combat" Have you ever ran into any Regimental Histories of Commonwealth infantry battalions? This is all they deal with. Rob Deans

And the two inch?

Redistributing ammo is something that is well within CM's scope. In certain circumstances, no, but a lull does not always mean a pause for the night. It could be 10 minutes here or there. In contact, this could prove to be most difficult, of course, but as the reserve platoon of the company that has taken the foot hold of the objective and is now behind the other platoons who are continuing to fight through, why, this is the reason for such tactics. The issue of "ammo is life" has merit and this is perhaps why the idea was not for automatic redistribution but rather an "order" for it to be done. The platoon commander has to keep his platoon effective and this is one way he has to do this. I know that the subject has been talked about before, but as with many others, the demo casts new light. The issue of ammo resupply. In a large battle of, say, battalion strength (the "comfortable" size of CM) this is a factor that should be included. A battalion battle of 60 or 90 turns (much too short, but this is a game) would be incomplete without resup. After one attack sections and platoons need more ammo. Ammo is everywhere on the battlefield. The key is where the ammo is and more importantly where it isn't and to have good enough admin to get to where it is needed. The issue of limits is taken for granted but it is unrealistic to consider that in a battlaion battle that no element will resup. I would propose resup at the company level by a unit of the company HQ. The Company Sergeant Majors of Commonwealth infantry companies did this as their battlefield job. Ammo up, casualties and PWs back. The company goes into action with a small "tail" just for this purpose. Look, I know that there are many things that people are asking for but these items are key to the reality of the 30 to 90 minute battlefield. I certainly am not advocating the "uber" ammo cache that units can sit beside and tap into the unlimited surplus of MG ammo. I won't bore anyone with my ideas of how to incorporate this into the game, but if it hasn't been done already, maybe take a second look at the subject. Thanks Rob Deans

Now what I have to do is to find an example of a three or four man American section and the same German one and compare firepower. (I haven't taken the time yet) Cancel last......Quick posting by other parties answered my questions for me. Thanks Rob Deans [This message has been edited by Rob Deans (edited 11-08-99).]

Man, conversations on this board are great. "specifically talking about a unit armed with only SMGs" Oh,....I see, sorry, I misunderstood. "(when applied to non-SMG units) if a German unit takes 2 casualties it loses a significant percentage of its firepower as opposed to the 12 man US squad losing the same number of men. Basically, a tit for tat trade of men weakens the German units more significantly with each single man lost." Please explain the logic behind this explanation. The way I see it.....If the MG42 provide 80% of the section's firepower and the rifles/SMGs the rest, then the section can still operate with, say, three men manning the gun and still have that 80% fire power. Now, if the American section is reduced to three men, because the firepower is spread MORE evenly accross the squad, those three men will not have anything close to 80% of the squad's firepower (not to dicount the BAR but it can't muster the same kind of firepower as the MG42). I had the oportunity to listen to a German company commander from the war. One of the most interesting points he made was the answer he gave to his own question. "How many men do you gentlemen think I had to have in my company to remain effective?" (Full strength was 120) People paused and whispered among themselves disscussing the possibilities.....Some answers were given,...."80,......No.......75....No.....50.....No......" I needed 37 men in my company to be effective. I had nine machine guns. I needed three men per gun and the leadership element of the company. This was from a man who fought the Russians.....This statement seems to qualify the opposite to the point above. Rob Deans

"Two houses, seperated by 20m, one with a us squad, one with a german squad." I don't know if this aspect is included in the game but 9mm Parabellum (MP40) will not penetrate walls of a house if there is any substance to those walls. 30-06 (M1) on the other hand.......... "A German squad which has lost 4 men is down to 50% of its firepower" I question the validity of this arguement...... First, to establish, a Yank rifle squad has its firepower rather evenly distributed (self loading rifles and a rather pedantic automatic rifle). The German contemporary, on the other hand, has its firepower chiefly centred around one weapon, the section LMG (MG34/42). This weapon is the "raison d'etre" on the German rifle section and is manned at ALL costs. So, for a Yank squad to loose, say, half it numbers, its firepower would drop correspondingly. A German squad which takes 4 of 8 men as casualties, still has the gun manned and the majority of its firepower at hand. This is a well documented strength of the German infantry orginazation and I am rather suprised that the statement was made. I could, of course, be completely missunderstanding the point, in which case please enlighten me. Thanks Rob Deans

Well Done..........'nuff said. Rob Deans

"stopped a major Soviet armored assault in two minutes" I guarantee you that the target was a registered target that all the available guns and mortars had the data for. Yes fire can be brought to bear very quickly (minutes) if the all the factors are in place. "Fire on Target 231 (or whatever)..." So 30 or 40 sec to lay the weapons, assuming the data is at hand, and 30 or 40 sec TOF in a perfect world would get you that "instant" response. MOst countries use some form of "target with the highest priority" We call it Final Protective Fire. If not otherwise engaged, the weapons are laid on this target. At the call of the FOO, the weapons will fire this target in seconds (plus time of flight of course). Rob Deans PS. What is 71331?

I just don't think that it would be that hard to have a simple and realistic model for indirect fire given the existing system now. The only games that I have seen where it comes even close to it are TACOPS and Brigade Combat Team. Every other game I have seen pays it lip service. Minute angle differences and trajectories are taken into consideration when dealing with armoured combat (well done) but the indirect fire system does not replicate the attention to detail of the rest of the game. Rob Deans Rob Deans

"Round scatter is tied in with spotter experience" This is the point I'm trying to make. This is wrong. The ability of the FOO has no bearing on the dispertion of the rounds during FFE. His ability lies in ADJUSTING the rounds. If he's good, he won't go chasing rounds all over hells half acre during adjustment. Yeah sure if hes a thud he'll order the fire in the wrong place but ALL the fire will end up there not just a few rounds. I'll give you an example...When I took the army course on this stuff the standard was "on in six". The initial round (had to be within 400m), one for line (2), a 400 correction (3), a 200 correction (4), a 100 correction (5) and a 50 correction (6). This was the student standard. A minute and a half per correction. We all did our thing and then the instructor stands up,...........New Target,...........three rounds in adjustment.....Fire For Effect.........He was on. Half the time to FFE. Thats the difference between a new FC and an experienced one. We both used a "Circle-Radius 50" distribution of fire.....The effect ammo looked exactly the same on the ground. Rob Deans

35 metres is fine, 50 m is fine but 300? And 300m in all directions? PEs take variables into consideration and the accuracy of a mortar is way under 300m. What I was referring to was a more uniform dispersion of rounds. I was talking to an "old boy" the other day and he was talking of a time when they stonked a farm yard at 2000m in Italy. They converged the 3" mortars and leveled the place with 4 rounds (per tube of course). If these weapons were so inaccurate then why was adjustment used at all? Rob Deans

I made a few points on my own observations about artillery in a separate post (...kick at the cat...). The observation I made was that the distribution of fire was too random as rounds were landing WAY off target (300m) away. Adjusted fire is simply not that inaccurate. The delays to FFE are way too short in my book. The fire should be more accurate and take longer. A point on technology, using simple radios, and manual equipment that is older in concept than you can imagine, a good FOO/FC and mortar line team can have an adjusting round on the ground in (working backwards, 30 sec ToF + 20 sec lay of the mortar + 50 sec calculation of fire data and issue of this to the line + 30 sec call for fire and read back) just over 2 minutes. For a mediocre FC add to this 4 or 5 adjusting rounds at a minute and a half a pop. Gives a grand total of about 10 min to FFE. This is a perfect scenario, of course, with no rain down you neck, water all over your plotter and ****ty comms. How can people remark about the interminable 3 min wait I don't know. What I havn't seen is the suppressive effect of the fire, I have seen sections stay upright with rounds exploding all around. The "killing" radius of a mortar bomb is say 40m (with a shell being somewhat more) so the supressive effect should be much greater. The issue of "adjustment distance for time" is a "gamey" issue. As stated above a 50 m correction takes no more than 15 seconds less than a 400m one. May be the confirmation of the limit of adjustment could be made? Thanks Rob Deans

Seen.....Don't mean to push any buttons......Maybe next time around??? Great work, Rob Deans

"To allow the human to set RoF is not only impractical (i.e. 60 seconds of hands off combat), but also would involve cumbersome interface" I dissagree. The menu would simply have one more "entry"......"Target" and "Target (Rapid Rate). The logic behind this would be, firing would be at a rapid rate until the target was suppressed and then it would slack off to "Normal Rate" if the target presented itself again, back up to rapid rate. Many times moving targets have made it accross a gap of fair distance and only engaged once by my unit. This was at the beginning of the the targets "run" and I sat and watched the en run away. Thanks, Rob Deans

All the stuff I am saying has been disscussed before, prior to the demo, which is truly a good game. The offboard artillery. My point is this. I was a bit dissappointed in the artillery model. I don't know if this stems from inaccurate information during development or missinterpretation of that info. I called in some 105 fire on a platoon in a copse, as every body has. "TOT 3 min...".........Wow thats fast......A couple of turns now, getting closer......Splash!....First few rounds land on target. Excellent....few more booms....Camera shakes....zoom out.....replay....rounds are landing 300m away! + and - the target, left and right......I must admit I was anticipating something different. I hate bringing up the same point but artillery fire gets, by nature, more accurate as adjusting goes on. The FFE is of regular dispersion. Once artillery fire is "ON" it stays ON. There are not "wingers" at 300m away on a regular basis. After seeing the menu and seeing normal and "dispersed" shoots I was salivating. Is this the artillery model I've been advocating and waiting for? No......it wasn't. Now I don't know everything but what I know I know. If this is far fetched then let me know. What I was hoping for was something like this, and it would seem to fit into the engine as it is now. When the fire is called the routine would go as follows. In two minutes a single round lands (adjustment) This is where the "wingers" would be expected. Every minute after that another single round lands, getting closer as each round is fired. When the fire is "on" the fire unit fires on that target in either a Converged or a Dispersed distribution of fire. The effect ammo is on the target and does not stray from the target. Now, a few caveats........ 1. The ability of the FOO is measured by the number of rounds the routine takes to get on target. An elite FOO will take two or three. A total idiot will take five or six. At a minute per round that makes difference. Remember, the player does not handle the adjustment, the computer does. 2. The dispersion <of the appropriate distribution of fire> of the rounds is governed by the ability of the mortarmen on the line (offboard). Green mortarmen would result in a couple of erring rounds. Good mortarmen would be spot on. To have rounds flying all over the place, seemingly in a wide, ramdom pattern as in this, seemingly abstracted, indirect fire system seems to be out of place in this superior game. 3. The overlying "PRO" to a system as has been outlined is it does not in any way detract from the game. It is no more complicated to the player than the existing one. The difference is in the overall time to FFE (too short as it is now) and the proposed system has the correct look and feel on the ground as the player is playing. I really love this game, don't get me wrong. When I first played SP I thought how cool it would be to be able to watch the game in real time from any angle. *POOF* TA-DA...Thanks guys. Rob Deans

I know that this has been talked about before but I wish I could give "Rates" of fire for these weapons. I was playing the Last Defence Scenario and an Infantry section located an American section in near a building on my right (next to the objective). I crept a Tiger up and opened fire with the coax. "Burst..........................Burst............................Burst." This is not how to win a firefight. This kind of fire is indicitive of fire AFTER the firefight is won and the troops are manouvering. How I wanted that tank to just give 'er and win the fight with rapid rate then, once the en had gone to ground slack off and "maintain" the situation. The tracer graphics did a very good job in simulating the real effect. Well Done All Around...... Rob Deans

Ummmm.....Yes.......

"You can tow an AT gun, and carry its crew, with a Jeep, even though the reality is that this isn't possible" The jeep was the prime mover for the 6pdr AT gun in airborne and airlanding units. The gun det consisted of the gun, a jeep and its crew. An obviously limited ammo supply was present too. A wee addition..... Rob Deans

"on map ones <mortars> can not" Thank you. As it should be for the 2". Then again you guys seem to have your sh*t wired tight so this comes as no suprise. Is this wise, though, for larger calibres of mortars, 3", 81mm, etc which I asume can be represented as on board assets. Will the "mortar platoons" (ie battalion level mortars) will be represented by an off board asset? (I'm talking 3" and 81mm here not 4.2" or 120mm, etc) Thanks Rob Deans

"Artillery is yellow for example" Does this mean that the 2" mortar is classified as artillery? Can it shoot indirectly in the game? Thanks, Rob Deans

I like it, looks good. I don't suppose you could change the name to "section" rather than "squad", could you? Thanks, Rob Deans

INF_BRITISH_SQUAD_RIFLE, Is this the way that the game will describe these units? In the "menu" screen that is. Could you please post the orbat of a British/Commonwealth rifle platoon if it's not too much trouble? Thanks, Rob Deans

INF_BRITISH_SQUAD_RIFLE, INF_BRITISH_SQUAD_PARA, INF_BRITISH_SQUAD_ENGINEER, Were you aware that the Airlanding Section was smaller (platoon strength of 28 in three sections, all that would fit in a Horsa)? The company kept its strength in that it had four platoons instead of three. The parachute sections were the same strength as normal rifle sections, though. A Royal Marine/Army commando sub-section (actually a section sized unit) was different too. Two assault sub sections of 12 and a support sub section of 5 and a Lt and a Sgt in the Section's HQ made up a Section. Two Sections Made a Troop and five troops and a heavy weapons troop made a Commando. Rob Deans

I was wondering (no luck in searching) if the capability to combine sections and other elements of your force will exist in the game. I guess that this would primarily be applicable in campaign type play. I speak specifically of taking two under strength sections that have just fought Battle A and combine them for a stronger section in Battle B. The platoon would have two sections instead of three. Thanks, Rob Deans