Tero

Originally posted by Battlefront.com: That's what I said. The key differences are that what CM is now is not historically incorrect. But it is too strictly based on formalized and documented TOE and command structure. It is perhaps historically incomplete, but that is something different. I'd say it is historically too pure. The "big picture" approach is its strenght. But it is also its main weakness. Especially in these überFinnish borderline cases. The other key difference is to remove the notion that this was only something the Finns did. This was not unique to Finland. By no means. While there was no SMG squad in the offical Finnish TOE as such the "common knowledge" over here is that the official allotment of weapons for an infantry squad was a very rare occurance in the field. http://www.winterwar.com/forces/FinArmy/asetilkehitys.htm From other sources I have gathered apparently all captured automatic weapons did not make it to the stats either (either not recorder or taken and lost again). The same tendency continued during Continuation War. With the influx of PPsH in the Red Army it did not take long for it to make to the Finnish armory in substantial numbers as well. There is a case I remember where a British platoon armed themselves almost exclusively with MG42s, Stens, and MP40s (something like every third man had a MG42!!). The difference here is that was not propably the norm in the British army but in the Finnish army captured arms and ammunition made up for a very substantial part of the resupply and replenishment effort. It can be said a Finnish platoon armed with Suomis, Emma's (Degtaryev) and PPsH's would have been far more common than your example would have been in the British army. The Germans also practiced handing over all SMGs to one unit, which was formalized with some of the Volksgrenadier units. They would rely on the MG-42 to act as the fire base even with the SMG's out of the squad. And the Finnish army really could not afford having weaker FP by design units in its ranks. The SMG's were cathered to ad hoc stormtroop kind of formations but the arrangement was not formalized AFAIK in any unit. But this is something that CM is really not set up to simulate. The data system is pretty inflexible and therefore we have to keep things pretty much "official" TO&E. So how did you determine what the "official" TOE for the Finnish army was if the only concrete thing that can be found in print is the organizational bit while pretty much all the rest was winged ? The new engine will not have such limitations. Looking forward to that.

Originally posted by Battlefront.com: What was the structure surrounding a SMG squad? In essence any and all squad in the Finnish army could and would become a SMG squad in the sence CM is handling them. Or rather they would and could turn fullauto heavy, even during an engagement, as needed. This is because the units would pick up automatics from the enemy (automatic rifles, LMG's, SMG's), they would be consolidated and concentrated from friendly units sometimes even from neighbouring companies. During combat the organization of a Finnish combat unit would be very (sometimes infuriatingly from the historical POV ) flexible. There are many examples about mixed companies (even from different regiments) being formed into ad hoc task forces during a CM scope battle. This means that if the CMBB was historically accurate any command unit in the Finnish force structure would be able to command any sub unit inthe force structure. There were no special SMG squad as an fixed organizational unit. That is the problem. One work around would be to use the split squad command to reach a more historically accurate FP mix. Only that incurs penalties which IMO are too severe and unrealistic compared to the benefits and results gained. How were they employed? In what numbers were they employed? When were they employed? That is the very essence and in the very core of the Finnish tactics and doctrine. In defence a force was to hold on to the defensive position at the end of the battle at all costs and that meant frequent counter attacks to retake lost positions. In attack they were used to punch through and dislodge the defenders. Which is pretty much what the SMG squads did in the other armies they were formed in formally I guess. In Finnish army there were no SMG squads as a separate organizational unit. All this is selfevident and natural to us Finns. But unfortnately there is very little or nothing in print since it is taken for granted any Finn familiar with the basics of the armed forces procedures (95% of the male adult population) will take the hint when the SOP is referred to in historical works.

Originally posted by Keke: Tero, since your email address doesn´t show in your profile, please contact me if you want to take part in a project which has a famous American historian and the Continuation War 1944 (codename: Forgotten Battles ). Been browsing around the Dupuy institute forum, have we ? Will do ASAP

Originally posted by TN: I think that Steve's information should be correct. Separate Sissi battallions fighting as infantry were pretty much a Winter War / early Continuation War feature. I don't remember seeing any references to them late in the war, so I'm ready to believe they were indeed disbanded. IIRC sissi units did see a certain degree of action as regular infantry during the partisan pursuit engagements also later on. However, days or weeks long, 30-50km running battles on foot with infantry-only forces in heavily wooded, swampy/wet terrain with frequent skirmishes and ambushes might be a bit out of CM scope. In CM terms the late war sissi units might be considered to be in par with partisan units, only with the benefits of being regular army troops.

Originally posted by Keke: Usually there´s too few units per km in CMBO/CMBB battles compared to historical situations, so this "too close" claim is almost absurd. Lets not forget the timeframe. What would be the average PBEM QB lenght and size ? 20-30 mins with 2000pts force on a medium map ? What would be a realistic length and size of a battle IRL ? 2 - 3 hours ? And the force would be anything from a reinforced company to a full battalion (and beyond). Imagine a 60min 5000 pts QB PBEM on a large map. I can envision somebody weened on SP getting a rash for having to play with the game with the kind of restrains imposed by the CM game engine. [ December 11, 2002, 05:35 AM: Message edited by: tero ]

Originally posted by aka_tom_w: This example may seem a little too "Black and White" BUT for simplicity sake lets assume that a garden variety stone wall grants hull down status. (this is the same stone wall in CMBO and CMBB, and AFAIK it does grant hull down status for the AFV behind it) Depending on the height of the wall and the height of the vehicle. I mention this because hull down in CMBO and CMBB only covers the lower hull. And that is the problem. A hull down turreted tank (like a Sherman) would normally be showing its turret above the crest. Now, in CM you get that for the turreted tank. The problem with assault guns are the gun is in the hull superstructure. If all things were being equal a hull down Sherman would be presenting both the turret and the hull superstructure to the enemy, thus presenting a larger target than an assault gun would. So in the example above BOTH the low sillouette StuG and the High Sillouette Sherman are in fact hull down behind a stone wall. And the Sherman would be presenting almost 60% of its mass to the enemy while the Stug would be presenting 40%, relatively speaking. Or the Stug gun would not clear the wall. I do not understand this issue. IF you use hunt to the crest of a hill (and there is an enemy AFV on the other side to be hull down to) then BOTH the StuG and the Sherman will Hunt up to just behind the crest of the hill where they will both find themselves in Hull down positions EVEN if the StuG (lower) is a little closer to the crest of the rise. NO?? :confused: Nope. If you Hunt you will essentially go as far as the way point unless you get presented with a target to shoot at. The place you end up in may or may not be in a hull down position relative to the target you are firing at. AFAIK with the Seek Hull Down command the AI will seek a Hull Down position in the near vincinity of the way point relative to the terrain. Whats the big deal here? Both end up hull down at some point when they hunt up the crest of a small hill do they not? Since only the lower hull is protected from hits in the hull down position does really matter that the low StuG gets closer to the crest of the Hill than the tall Sherman? Not really. The thing is a I assume a turreted vehicle will be more efficient in seeking that hull down position because of the internal dealings of the game engine and by virtue of the terrain tile size. So if I may Ask, because I am as stumped as Steve is here, could Tero please expand on and explain what he is trying to get at when he states: "AFAIK the terrain tile size in CMBO and CMBB are identical so I assume a turreted vehicle will still be more efficient in obtaining a Hull Down position compared to a non-turreted vehicle." Actually, Steve is stumped at my remark: Is not the StuG and the Sherman equally efficient in obtaining a Hull Down position when using the Hunt command towards the crest of a small rise or by using the Move or Fast command to a prime location immediately behind a stone wall? Again, AFAIK the Hunt command will not take into account Hull Down positions when it is being executed. Why the extra Seek Hull Down command if it did ? In Hunt, where you out the way point is where you end up unless you spot an enemy unit to engage. But this is sidetracking from the main issue and I know Steve does not take too kindly to this. Or soon we will be hearing about the moster burrito he ate last but night which retreated out the back before he could engage the beer in his immediate LOS. [ December 05, 2002, 08:18 AM: Message edited by: tero ]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com: Could have KO'd its gun (quite possible) True. But it did squeeze off rounds. or made the crew Panic (not likely unless Conscript). IIRC Regular. This was my original assumption until they started moveing when the Marder showed up. You might have (eventually) also killed the TC. True. Otherwise I can think of no reason the KV wouldn't return fire. But as for not moving... The not moving bit was what I found odd. I doubt this kind of behaviour would have been possible against a human opponent. No, the KV will not think much about 20mm Flak. At one point heavily armored vehicles were more skittish about such fire, but this turned out to cause a problem where a couple of light guns could scare off vehicles that rarely would suffer damage from hits. I'm not wondering about why it did not bolt back in panic. I wondering how it was possible for the pea shooter to pin the monster down so effectively so it was effectively neutralized until I could bring up stuff to deal with it. The way I see it this is a reverse side of the this selfpreservance coin: the threat is not significant so the crew will not act to move to save itself as it were while at the same time the crew is suppressed enough to prevent any kind of meaningful responce from the TacAI. Even when buttoned up the KV crew responded, promptly, when a "real" danger appeared. The 20mm FLAK did not trigger such responce but it prevented any kind of other action by the AI. Had the KV been able to KO the FLAK I have no doubt in my mind the KV would have proceeded with what ever plan the AI had laid out. Please state specifically what the problem is you claim CM has with hull down. It is not a bug, it is a feature. In CMBO it is virtually impossible for a non-turreted vehicle to obtain a hull down position due to the terrain tile size (when under human control). In CMBB there is the Seek Hull Down command which deals partly with that problem. AFAIK the terrain tile size in CMBO and CMBB are identical so I assume a turreted vehicle will still be more efficient in obtaining a Hull Down position compared to a non-turreted vehicle.

Originally posted by Battlefront.com: Er... I don't have a clue what you are talking about Yes you do. Unless of course you changes the terrain tile scale and kept it a state secret until now.

Originally posted by Battlefront.com: You say you find it "odd", but not why. From your vague description I would say it sounds fine. The evasion bit was not what was odd. The odd part was when the KV just sat there for several turns taking fire from the puny 20mm FLAK and did absolutely nothing for the cause. I think it is odd you can pin down the AI controlled mosters with things like a 20mm FLAK. The KV was buttoned up for most of the time and remained still. The FLAK would engage infantry and every time the TC popped the hatch the FLAK gun would squeeze a few rounds at the monster and it would button up again and sit on its hands. It did not move until I got some serious FP in LOS. And even then it would only reverse out of sight. I left out the bit when it reversed long ways parallel to the edge of the map (quite some distance from the edge though) and once it found a T-26 wreck it reversed right into it and remained there perfectly still until I inched my Marder up to it and finished it off with nice flank shots. Only then did it start moving away from the wreck to save itself. Which it could not manage. It was perfectly OK for the KV to shrug off the insignificant 20mm FLAK rounds. What was not OK was the getting pinned down by it. The way I saw it the crew was rattled but not enough to actually do something about it since the menace from the FLAK did not warrant it.

Originally posted by Seanachai: But the Germans and the Scandos...they put you in mind of the Icelandic Sagas. Some minor point, or some small slight or imagined slight will pass all but unremarked, but they go home and brood on it for 10 years. Then one day they gather up all their kinsmen and friends, show up at your house at midnight, and set it afire, killing everyone fleeing the flames with swords. Islandic sagas my arse. Over here in Finland people would pick up an axe and go "find out" who is responsible for the outrage when they saw a chip float dowstream denoting somebody was building something too close to their patch of woods.

Just did a nice June 1942 QB with PzKw-IIIJ's, a Marder, a 50PAK and a platoon of infantry vs T-26's, a KV-1, a 45mm ATG and some infantry. I found it a bit odd the KV would not move unless it was threathened by a flank shot from the J's or the Marder. Other than that it just sat there asking for it. It never moved to save the T-26's or the infantry. It just stood in place and took shots from a 20mm FLAK which happened to be positioned in its LOS at the startup. It squeezed off a few rounds now and again and the rest of the time I suspect the FLAK gun pinned it down and kept it suppressed.

Originally posted by Michael emrys: Were there any open-topped Jagdpanzers? I thought those were all classified as Panzerjägers, but I admit I could easily be mistaken on this. I used the generic term since for example the Jpz-I is technically speaking a Panzerjäger. The only true Jagdpanzers I know of are the Jpz-IV series and the Jagdpanther and the Jagdtiger. Anyways, AFAIK both Jadgpanzers and Panzerjägers are assaultguns as far as the game engine is concerned.

Originally posted by Battlefront.com: You mean in real life? In the game. CM's terrain fidelity is not refined enough to make this distinction in an exact way, but it is taken into account (roughly). Then the (sad ) truth is in the game the assault gun will never be able to truly take up a hull down position the way it would be able to IRL, compared to a turreted vehicle. Right ? The ISU is likely to find Hull Down in a slightly different spot (i.e. further back) than a StuG would. Sounds realistic. And of course the higher vehicles will be more exposed in shallower terrain than their lower counterparts. A turreted vehicle is assumed by the TacAI to be a bigger threat than a non-turreted vehicle. At least in so far as that aspect is concerned. I though it would have been interesting to pit that ISU against a Marder (perhaps it both facing towards the ISU and away from it) and see how it would have behaved, the Marder ROF being roughly equal to the PzKw-IV ROF. RoF is only one of many factors considered. In this SPECIFIC set of circumstances, it appears to have been one of the major factors. So I gathered. Someone did put a T-34/85 up against the PzIV and found that it didn't retreat. Or something like that That is not quite the same, now is it ? [ December 04, 2002, 04:55 AM: Message edited by: tero ]

After wading through all this I think one question was never asked: How can the (I)SU (being a non-turreted assault gun) successfully use the manual Seek Hull Down command when I have read the Stug (being a non-turreted assault gun) essentially can not obtain a hull down position with the same efficiency (if at all) as its turreted brethren ? All the examples have been about assault guns vs turreted tanks. What happens if the (I)SU is pitted against the Stug, or any of the open topped Jpz's ? Or the Stug (with a reasonable ROF which would by all accounts make it think it has a fighting chance against most comers) is pitted against the (I)SU, a T-34, or better yet a IS-2 ?

So, am I in or what since my email was not formulated in that manner ?

Originally posted by Fly Pusher: It happens in real life. There have been documented cases of soldiers vacating their trenches to flee during artillery strikes. Mace</font>

Originally posted by Battlefront.com: But in the context of this discussion, I don't think it would make any difference even if we could allow them to sprint short distances. Under extreme conditions it could make a difference between an utterly exhausted, immobilized and/or even a captured (1 man) HMG team and a out of breath HMG team with a few casualties. But they would also be exposed worse to whatever fire they received. On top of that, Sprinting commits the unit to a rather risky course of action which the player is going to have very little capability to influence (in general). True. But since the option is to have them crawl and get exhausted while being beaten into a pulp I would imagine IRL the team would either abandon the load or make a run for it carrying the bits instead of just crawling around getting exhausted without nothing to show for it. Why will they not abandon a perfectly functioning HMG anyway when the situation could warrant it ? With Sneak I can cancel the orders completely and leave the unit where it is, redirect it to someplace else, let it continue or put off that decision for another turn. True. But I think the main concern is when the AI takes over. This has zero effect once a unit is spotted, which is exactly what we are talking about in this thread. So in the context of this discussion, this would do nothing. I'm thinking along the lines of the Sneak as a command in general here. Or are you trying to squelch dissent by pinning this debate down with strict parameters which allow no lateral movement to explore the Sneak command and its effects in general ? No, I think it is primarily because you are reading a book written by an FO and no historical book I have ever seen has had a similar focus. True. But if you look at the OB of a FO teams in general are there any differences in the them in terms of small arms FP ? My assumption here is that "all the time" did not mean every battle. It does not. By recurring theme I meant it happened according to him when attacking in 1941, during the early static phase in early 1942 and again during the summer of 1944. And yes, I do know that FOs for other nations were often caught up in the fighting. However, CMBB simulates this to some degree with defensive fire capabilities. But, then again you are making this discussion unfocused again so let's drop the back and forth about this, OK? OK. Of course not, but you are pulling things out of context and that is not helpful. Out of context being out of the perimeters of the original premise as presented in the opening of this thread ? Correct. And completely contrary to Redwolf's claims, the TacAI does all of these things depending on circumstances. I must admit I have seen more crawling that I would have expected, even based on CMBO. Sneak is a purely defensive move so I don't agree with your assessment. So you are now allowing for example the Widraw command to be used to all directions and not just towards the "friendly" edge of the map ? Haven't tried that one out yet. All the other commands are directed at forward movement. The is no way to get your guys pulled back in an organized fashion once the feces has actually hit the ventilation. Again, contrary to Redwolf's claims... this is what the TacAI does. The unit first tries to shrug off the enemy fire (if very light, of course), then it tries to make it to better cover. This can be using a Run order or Sneak, depending on circumstances. If it feels that this is something it can't do, it remains in place trying to survive there instead of risking going elsewhere. That sounds good on paper. But if they are staying in place why the heck are they getting exhausted so darned fast ? Panicked units are a whole nother ball of wax. Agreed. Sneak in CMBB is roughly what CMBO Crawl used to be in terms of cover and speed. So what parts were retained from the original Sneak command ? Finding the kind of conditions you speak of is not out of the question, but it is far more unlikely than likely in open terrain. This is why the Soviets opted for the fixed wheeled undercarriage for their Maxims. Plus, you again are underestimating the problems of firing a full auto weapon on no platform. Even a rock is a platform. You are too hung up on the Rambo scenario. your understanding of how MGs work in non ideal circumstances is fundamentally flawed. Admittedly my experience with MG's is limited to the modern Finnish army LMG and the Maxim. But since I have been "fortunate" enough to actually operate both in field conditions I must say I doubt your experience about firing them in ideal conditions makes your understanding of the potential of the MG's in non idel conditions any better than mine is. Firing them or actually operating in ideal conditions is not really enough to fully understanding their operation in combat conditions, let alone operating them in non ideal conditions. You see the weight as a liability. I see it both as a liability but also as a benefit. A Maxim is a right bitch to move around but the weight of the MG makes it possible to use whatever sturdy object as a platform in an emergency when firing. All you need to have is enough clearance for the belt (and of course you know the belt goes in at the top of the box giving some clearance even when the MG is on the ground). Recoil is not a major problem because the weight of the MG keeps it under control reasonably well. Plus, this is still irrelevant to this discussion When going this far out, yes. I don't have that, so I guess I'll just have to take your word for it that Finnish über MG gunners routinely strapped belts of ammo all over themselves, put their AT Toothpick behind one ear, and then marched upright into combat firing a Maxim with one hand from the hip while feeding the belt with the other hand. I stand corrected That is the American John Rambo, not the Finnish Antti Rokka you are talking about here. Again. (Antti Rokkas RL counterpart did actually take out over 80 enemy soldiers singlehandedly with a SMG. He had an assistant gunner to fill in the magazines as he was firing them. This action was a text book example about the usefulness of crawling under fire BTW. ). You really should get a copy of the Unknown Soldier. In case you are not aware it is about a HMG company and the author served in one during the war. The book itself is THE definitive book about WWII here in Finland. Otherwise I must assume that you DO think it is relevant and therefore I have to respond as such. It seems to me you have been working with coding extensively lately. You seem far more B/W oriented now than in most debates. Yup. Just like the people who want to do SMG rushes at MGs like in CMBO are to blame for their squads being mowed down and the survivors running back panicked. Running is good. What if they start crawling ? If you don't think you are going to be observed, no. If you do think you are going to be observed, not chatting and clanking things won't do you any good if the enemy can actually see you moving about. IRL the spotting is relative, not absolute. The kind of Sneak you are talking about doesn't work if the enemy has already spotted you. Use Advance instead of Sneak more. My understanding is there is very little stealth in the Advance mode. True, but again I point out... what good does sneaking around do if you are already spotted and under aimed fire? Nothing. So having this command doesn't change one bit how the system functions. Well.... getting out of sight fast does warrant hitting the deck. But why on earth would you want to continue crawling if you are already taking fire and you continue taking fire even with your bellybutton on the grass ? Wouldn't you be better off actually doing something ? I don't agree in general, and obviously think this is yet another example of you distracting us from the discussion in this thread. Like MG team training, this is irrelevant. As such, propably. But in your quest to steer away from micromanagement you have denied the player some very relevant options when you have made the AI pick up the most time and strenght consuming form of movement at a time when something else is clearly needed. Countermanding AI orders is of course one way of doing it but if the AI is predisposed to use Sneak when clearly other steps would be more appropriate then something is amiss. Our testers were never told how to play the game or what to do while they were playing it. Because of that they had no idea what the "end result" was supposed to be. Did you know what the end result should be ? And your statement clearly indicates that you have never play tested a game. True. I have troubleshot systems enough to spot a rigged flow of events. But let me give you a hint... play testing is very much like what you are doing now. The difference is that a good play tester focuses in and determines what, if anything, might be wrong. They don't invent things and they don't bring up irrelevant issues. That just bogs down the whole process and makes the tester, effectively, useless to us. We don't have time to argue for argument's sake, which is something I think you quite enjoy (based on our many back and forths over the years). I have seen no indication that there is anything significant we need to concern ourselves with. The problems brought up by Redwolf are of his own making and the results are not unreasonable. With the exception that we might need to put a cap on recovery time, but that is something no player should ever experience in a real game because it is within his ability to control it. True to some extent. But much of this would not even come to pass if the game manual was a bit better in explaining the underlying system. You have a quite brilliant intuitive user interface but when intuition clashes with the events on the screen questions will be raised. Stuff like penetration values etc are pretty straight forward. Not being able to properly have turretless vehicles take up a hull down position is something else. Then there are these AI quirks which are the most difficult to fathom since there is very little data on the actual workings of the AI.

Originally posted by Nabla: Loistavaa! Excellent! Outstanding even. Tässä samat fraasit järjestettynä aakkosten mukaan, mikä nopeuttanee listan käyttöä pelien aikana. And here's the same list, sorted alphabetically, which should speed up the use of the list during games. What remains are the lessons you guys must take to get to know the Finnish pronounciation. MUUTOS: Linuxin sort sekoitti järjestyksen skandinaavisten merkkien osalta, korjasin. Kaikki mikä viittaa Suomeen ei sittenkään ole überiä. EDIT: Linux sort got confused with umlauts, fixed the problem. Everything related to Finland is not über after all. Are you sure ? UNIX and 7-bit ASCII are not Finnish inventions... BTW: did they really use viheltää during the war ? I thought that was a more recent training term.

Originally posted by JonS: True, but again I point out... what good does sneaking around do if you are already spotted and under aimed fire? Nothing ...</font>

Originally posted by Battlefront.com: Relative. If we were to make Teams relatively closer to Squads relative to the whole, this would be less realistic because the realistic differences between the two would diminish. And nobody, not even you, has made a case for them being able to move around with greater ease than they do now. Not with greater ease but perhaps with a (slightly) greater speed. The HMG team tires fast (which is good and proper on the whole) but they can not run short distances. IMO it would be more realistic to have the HMG team run that 50 meters to the cover instead of having it Sneak/Crawl it all the way. They would be equally sapped but they would be exposed for a shorter time period than they are if they Crawl. If there was a separate Sneak mode that would make them move stealthily but not lose their stamina in the process. And that is what this thread is about, not about how quickly a MG assistant gunner can get a belt out and load a MG. That is something entirely different that you have, for some odd reason, dragged into this discussion. That is incidental. Even you must realise that is only enhancement to a point, not a separate issue as such. Or do you want to get me going on the lack of RPM's for the überFinnish Maxims ? I just had a mortar team defend itself, quite well in fact, against an enemy infantry assault without losing its mortar. Lucky you. So I don't understand what it is you are saying here, except for perhaps pointing out that occasionally some foolish specialist would ignore all his training. According to your perception of training effects in combat this would not happen Admittedly the reports I have read about FO's having to defend themselves against infantry attacks does pertain only überFinnish FO's. I am currently reading an autobiography of a Finnish FO and it is a recurring theme. They had SMG's and rifles and they had to use them quite often to beat back Soviet infantry while calling in fire mission. Either the Finnish FO's were deployed more towards the frontline than in the rest of the armies. Or there is something in the differences between the others and the Finnish fire direction practises and firing procedures that allowed them to do this. Then again having their land line go dead may have left them with nothing much to do but take pot shots at the enemy while waiting for the comms pukes to get the line working again. And in case you can not discern it this is a side issue not worth getting too much worked up about. Absolutely agree. And that is why a HMG Team in CM can handle a HMG better than a Squad can Or are you saying that because a HMG team can operate a HMG better than a Squad that they should somehow be better at returning fire under fire than a Squad, even though the Squad is better trained in the use of rifles and LMGs than the HMG team? Don't you see here... your argument is irrelevant when looking at how each handles incomming fire. It has zero to do with their weapons training. And just to repeat again, this discussion is about Exhaustion, which has nothing to do with training. What happens before Exhaustion sets in can not be ignored. Lets say we have a HMG team and a squad traverse an open location. Both get shot at. Hitting the deck is reasonable in almost all circumstances. What would be the most reasonable way to respond to the new threat: start crawling for near by cover, sprint for near by cover or return fire in place ? All this is situation and experience level dependant of course. I assume the members of the squad act according to their training for the first few seconds (dive, roll/crawl or crawl/roll, observe, fire) within a few meters from their respective locations. What then ? Instead of starting to crawl 50 meters even a reasonably green squad would most propably ascertain the direction the fire is coming from and start out returning suppressing fire. If they get suppressed and they need to relocate would they really opt to crawl out or use other modes of movement, like pulling out by the section using overwatch. A HMG team would hit the deck and depending on the situation either make a dash for a location they can set up and start firing or set up in place and start blasting. Having them crawl extended distances is the least realistic option. Have YOU tried crawling with a tripod or a Maxim MG and keep low yourself at the same time ? I have and I must tell you that I can imagine a war time HMG team would more likely look for a nearby cover and make a run for it rather than hit the deck and start crawling for it, especially over such distances as 50 meters. I imagine it would not be beyond them to drop what they are carrying and revert to using their rifles and sidearms in case setting up or other use of the HMG is out of the question. It is a bit of a shame the TacAI and the command set favour advance and aggressive manouvering. There is little for defensive manouvering to offer in them. Correct. And what is the basic, automated thing troops of all flavors are most interested in? Staying alive. Yes. There is one fallacy in your reasoning though. A squad has to get sufficiently suppressed for the survival instinct to get the better of the trained instinct and after that they would propably not CRAWL extended distances (50 meters) to save themselves. If panicked enough they would most propably make a dash for it. Or a series of dashes depending on the distance. If they are able to keep their wits and they remember their training they are not likely to get sapped crawling around doing nothing. They would look for a location which provides even a token LOS cover and start up towards the direction the fire is coming from. If they need to pull out, as stated above, dashing using section overwatch would be the most appropriate means of movement in a sitaution like that. This is exactly what they do. The conditions being discussed here are basically so bad that the unit has already decided that the risk of moving is better than the risk of setting up shop and defending from where they are at. Are they using the old CMBO Sneak part or the old CMBO Crawl part of the CMBB Sneak command ? No, you are wrong because you are treating this thing in an overly simplistic way. For example, we have been talking about units out in the open. How is the Maxim going to be fired when there is nothing handily available to fire from other than the tripod? You assuming tabletop type terrain with no features. OK. The team is carrying stuff like several (presumably) metallic ammo boxes. Even a folded tripod can be used. In a more realistic terrain any suitably located elevated firm terrain feature can be used. Also, as someone else pointed out this is not about one guy being Rambo with a HMG. This is about a team of 4-6 men with heavy loads of ammo and other weapon specific equipment. For a much better and much more appropriate references for HMG teams I suggest you dig up your copy of Väinö Linnas The Unknown Soldier and the two movies (1950's and 1980's edition) based on it. All belts are prone to jamming when they are not set up in the prescribed way. Perhaps some less than others, but this is still totally irrelevant to this discussion. Not when talking about alternate ways of using the equipment. Tero, could you PLEASE stay focused? We are not talking about the difference in seconds one weapon takes to set up vs. another. That is, like much of the above stuff from you, totally irrelevant. And no, they are all pretty much treated equally, although I think there is a lower chance of JAM for water cooled MGs. But this, like the rest of your distracting side coversation, is irrelevant. You brought up the nth degree. I just asked about what you meant by that. I would have expected you to be able to sort that out. You yourself brought it up. I trusted you to be able to discern it. This is a side issue not worth getting too much worked up about. No, because Redwolf got them into a bad situation while on the move, they decided they wanted to get out from that spot, and Redwolf did not try to influence that decision. So basically Redwolf is the one to blame for this feature not working for him the way it is supposed to ? True, we could in theory use a seperate SNEAK command for this type of unit in this type of situation. However, Assault or Advance works damned well for something like a Tank Hunter. For something like a Scheck, use Sneak only for the last portion of the move. In real life Sneaking while standing up in most cases isn't any different than what Advance will yield in the game. Standing up means you have a good chance of being spotted. Yep. But would you really need to Crawl in covered terrain to be stealthy ? From my experience, Tank Hunters do very well with the Sneak command. Do you have some direct experience to say otherwise, or are you just arguing to argue? Experience. Especially AT teams with no stand off capable weapons would really benefit from a Sneak that does not zap away their stamina. Especially in covered terrain and/or when the Universal Spotting production studios are resposible for the feature attractions. Not for me. I use it in the same way the TacAI does, as well as being more creative with it in general. But that is not limited to the Sneak command as a good player can do all sorts of things the TacAI isn't coded for. The thing is you can not get the Sneak part without the Crawl part. How do you move troops in a stealthy manner if Sneaking means crawling and the player can not tell for certain (or precisely) when to swicth from other modes to Sneak ? The AI is taking care of a lot of stuff. Setting up way points and ordering modes of movement is (too) often (too) arbitrary when the terrain features large tiles and even a millimeter on the screen can be the difference of life and death of the troops. Move to Contact was a definitive step in the right direction but combining Sneak and Crawl was a definitive set back. Sure, the playtested it for a year. How else do you expect to figure out a couple billion possible permutations? By testing them one at a time out of context? How do you determine a permuatation is out of context ? If you set up parameters to follow and they are followed no wonder the end result is what you expected them to be when you started out. What happens when an "illegal" permutation is observed ? I think it is fine the way it is now. They will do this, but not in crappy circumstances like the ones discussed to death in this thread. I think the very functionality of the feature is best tested in such crappy circumstances. The Gauss curve assumes there are samples at the very tip of the both ends of the line. The fact that the vast majority of the incidencies are within the norm does not make the far end occurancies any less relevant.

Originally posted by Battlefront.com: And my point was the more a Team starts to behave like a Squad based on CMBB as it is right now, the less realistic it is. In absolute or relative scale ? Crew served weapons absolutely, without question, were not as flexible and easy to deploy as a squad of infantry. True. Pick up any book on tactics and you will have a hard time not noticing this. I believe live fire excersises with a Maxim did convince me. Of course not. There is no such thing as the modeling of training in any unit. Really ? And if we did do correct modeling, how would it be possible to enforce when the Human can order the unit to do something it was not supposed to do. I believe this is reflected in the way crews and selected teams are now treated in the game. There is no RL obstruction for them to pick up a rifle/SMG and start acting as infantry once their ordnance is exhausted or KO'd. For example, I have read several accounts how FO teams had to defend themselves against infantry attacks while doing their dedicated mission. I know, I know: gamey universal spotting etc.. True, but what difference does that make? If I am trained to move around something heavy and difficult to handle, and you are trained to move around with a rifle, are you saying that makes us equal? Sorry, I don't buy it Equality is not what is called for. What is called for is specialized skills. It is taken for granted engineers or artillery men can operate certain devices better than ordinary infantry, even under combat conditions. I fail to see there is no benefit in drilling to operate a HMG. True, their SOP in a non combat situation without having crawled through 50m of open ground under fire. Setting up the weapon is not the issue here. Being able to use it is. Two entirely different things. The former is training, the latter is specific circumstances. The very basic of military training is to instill automated, instinctive action when under fire. I agree that works only up to a point. But until that point is reached a team should be able to function pretty consistently. Should the team start crawling to safety in the first place if they know they are risking life and limb hauling the stuff around or should they set up and start blasting ? I'm predisposed to think their first instinct would be to get their prime asset working for them before it is too late. Not true. It depends on the weapon. You could not fire the US .30cal or .50cal MGs without their tripods. Nor could you fire a Maxim, Vickers, or any other water cooled MG without their mounts as well. Oh, I suppose in theory it could be fired, but it would most likely jam before it hit anything. You are wrong. I trust you are correct when it comes to the US weapons but the water cooled MG's could be used without the tripod. They are steadier because of their weight and if you find a suitable rest for it (log, root, branch, knoll, cart, wreck) which gives enough clearance for the belt you can operate it without a tripod mount quite easily. Oh, just remembered, the Brits and the Soviets used canvas belt, the Finns used non-disintegrating metal belt (but the Soviet belt could be used if there was no time to move the ammo to a "proper" belt). This accounts for the differences here as a canvas belt is more prone to jamming than a metal belt. Sure, but we do not simulate the particulars of each individual weapons system to the nth degree. nth degree being what ? Or are you saying the stoppage rate for MG-34/42 and water cooled models is the same ? Plus, this still ignores the ability to fire based on circumstances. The ones Redwolf was bringing up were not favorable circumstances. The crews were already shook up enough to cease being effective in the way you describe. Yes. Because they have been sapped after crawling around a bit. Right ? Depends on the situation. In the kinds of situations we have been discussing here, I think it is an absolute "yes" because the unit is NOT trying to shoot but instead trying to get to cover. Should it be trying to shoot instead of trying to get to cover ? I'm predisposed to opt for the trying to shoot option. Well, it is the player's choice. If he wants them to sneak around, they don't get to shoot. If he wants them to shoot he cancels their orders or plots a more realistic path so that they can shoot from there. Simple as that. Unless the AI countermands and issues Sneak orders instead. Teams aren't supposed to sneak up on anybody. I would have thought for example an AT team should sneak up on a tank and be fit enough to assault it instead of getting sapped crawling needlessly when they could sneak up on it upright most of the way keeping their fitness level high enough to be effective when the target is in range. They are supposed to be set up in place before the battle in favorable positions. Or at least that is what US, German, and Soviet Doctrine I have read states quite clearly. When talking about heavy support weapons then I agree. But AT teams get thrown out with the bath water on this one because by their very nature they need both stealthy movement and stamina to perform. The Sneak command denies them of that as it is. This is basically an entirely new feature set. It is something that we are building into the new engine, but there is no way it can be retrofitted into the existing code base. Figured as much. The conditions for that are pretty simple. If the unit feels it needs to Sneak in order to avoid being killed, it will do this even if you did not order it. Just like a squad will alter its path when under fire or a tank will reverse even when not ordered to. It is entirely consistant. Then it must be asked if the Sneak command is structured correctly. In CMBO the separate Sneak and Crawl command were OK. Now with the Sneak and Crawl combined it seems there are inconsistencies about its usage by the AI as opposed the usage by the player. Something like 50 testers and a year's worth of testing. I think that is more than adequate. Especially since the starting code was play tested by a lot more than that over a greater period of time And they did cover all the permutations even with the changes when migrating from CMBO to CMBB ? On a relative scale, I agree. But if I only have two categories to choose from (which is what we have), there is no question at all that it is closer to the mortar than the squad. Both in terms of intended function as well as the reality of its mobility. An option would be to make them even less mobile but more prone to open fire instead of going to ground.

Originally posted by tabpub: I beg to differ. The tripod, the extra barrels and ammo are what separates a MG34/42 in the "heavy machine gun" role from the same weapon in a squad/LMG role. True. But does that affect the actual opening of fire when the feces does hit the ventilation ? IRL I mean. Will the first gunner hauling the actual MG wait for the tripod to be brought up before he even starts to think about getting the belt in and scanning for fields of fire etc ? There are differences between the MG34/42 family and the Maxim but in both cases the crews could and most propably would act according to the situation rather than strict parade ground training drill SOP. Mind you, the wheeled undercarriage in the Soviet version is a mixed blessing. On one had it arguably moves better in flat terrain but to bring it about to face the enemy in that ground will expose the crew more than setting up a tripod mounted one would. And if the terrain is something else than flat, even steppe the wheels are a liability more than they are a benefit. And still the crew will be more exposed when seeting it up. Moving heavy weapons under fire is not, repeat NOT desirable. So, any scenario should be set up to reflect this. Either, the setup line should have suffcient fields of fire to the objective areas to simulate the preparation for the assault; or sufficient time should be allowed for them to be moved in to position. Now in the case of a QB, give yourself plenty of turns to move up and follow at least 100m behind your infantry and let them secure the fireline position. I tend to agree with that. But there are times when you have to move them. For example if you are attacking in covered terrain you have to either move the heavies at a faster pace or slow the infantry advance down. Having a Syncronice Speed option would be nice since you can only get one way point for group meovements.

Originally posted by panzerwerfer42: I think this is a scenario that the designer wanted you to be able to use smoke shells in. IIRC Finnish artillery never used smoke barrages so a German spotter had to be substituted in. I think never is a bit strong. Anyways, IIRC the most of the smoke deployed by the gamey Finns was deployed with infantry/engineer smoke boxes and other such devices and not artillery. So where is the damned smoke for the überFinns in CMBB ??!??

Originally posted by Battlefront.com: The closer to Squads we make them behave, the less realistic they become. I'm with SuperSulo on this one. The more you move them away from the squads the more realistic they do NOT get. The question that is not answered is: do the teams get different training than the squads and how is that modelled in the game ? They are not hauling mere chunks of metal of XXX kg. They are hauling pieces of a weapon system which they have been trained to operate. Sure, they get exhausted hauling them around. But they also get the pieces slapped together and working within seconds as per SOP they have drilled ad nauseam during training. For example, strictly speaking, the HMG does not need the tripod in order to make it work. When surprised would the team go about assembing the entire set up or would they use whatever support they find, slap in the belt and start blasting away trading accuracy for speed, worrying about the tripod when they have the time ? In the case of the MG-34/42 this dual ability is even more pronounced. The mortar will not work if not assembeled correctly. Is it OK to have the HMG team perform the same way a mortar team performs when setting up the weapon system ? IMO, no. This because I think the differences in training of the two teams is so different that the HMG team would know when to cut corners whereas the mortar team simply can not cut corners if they want their weapon to fire. The logic here is that they are being proactive. They move slower and harder to hide than Squads. Therefore, they are more likely to be uncomfortable when affected by enemy fire. By the same token one would think they would also be more alert and be more prepared to open fire rather than start sneaking around taking casualties and getting exhausted. You can stop a unit from Sneaking provided it isn't still getting shot up out in the open. I think the main point is there are people who think there is no way to prevent then from starting Sneaking or that they start Sneaking at the drop of a pin. I too would like to see a more aggressive behaviour patterns, especially for more experienced troops, when it comes to coming under fire. Or the Sneak command reverted back to resemble more the CMBO patter. The new set of commands seem to lack a stealthy movement/keep fit command that would allow sneaking upright without getting sapped when trying to sneak up on an unsuspecting enemy. By focusing in on the details we have determined that, by and large, there is no problem here other than the one the player creates for himself. And that end result is, by and large, completely realistic. What is missing is the user interface that would allow for such RL terms like "use your own discretion" or other FRAG-OR type partial orders which allow for interpretation and alternate ways to following the orders. As things stand sinking down to the AI level when thinking about the issuing of commands is the only way to get the AI do what you want. When the player is shouting at the screen "Did I tell you to do THAT !" more often than not he did tell the AI to do that. The problem is what you ordered does not always match up with what you thought you ordered. Rather, coherent means that all the sub pieces work together in a way that produces a realistic reflection of whatever it is we are attempting to simulate. What kind of a pool of sample permutations did you test out to determine if the sub pieces work consistently in any/all conditions ? What kind of a pain treshold did you allow for in the design to accomodate deviations ? In this case, the differences between lugging around a rifle and person gear and lugging around a clumsy 40 lb tripod, Schreck, AT Gun, loads of ammo, etc. The notion that a HMG Team should be treated equally compared to a Squad is not realistic at all, and therefore is not something we will cater to. IMO it is warranted to call for the HMG team to be treated more like a squad than for example a mortar team is.

The ISBN, boy, the ISBN.... I mean for the original version.