Tero

Originally posted by Big Time Software: Looking at the accounts of the Winter War it would appear that at one point 1/2 of all Pioneers were untrained. The URL went dead on me. Seems Sami has had some problems recently with the index page or something. IIRC they were untrained in the pioneer business but not totally untrained as military personel. By 1941 the situation changed and improved markedly when talking about the organization of the pioneeri korps. In theory you are correct, of course, but the reality of mobilization and losses means that things are not always going to be as they are planned for. True. But I would like to think they would not give a high power demolition charge to a man fresh out of boot or fresh of civvies and 10 years since he has fired a rifle and get him going yonder to KO that pesky bunker. In such a case I would think the infantry commander would take the charge off his hands and give the task to a more seasoned regular infantry soldier. Or put him in mine clearing duty without any training in proper mine clearing techniques. I could imagine that was the case in the Red Army but not the Finnish army. Actually, that is what I meant I'm aiming for a 3 man team, which is 1/3 of a Squad. They would be exempt from morale penalties. Just waiting to hear back from Charles if this is OK. I see no reason why it won't be. OK. Would a pioneer "platoon" be a HQ unit and three or four 3 man teams ? Not without making it available for Quick Battle purchase (player or CM unit choosing). But if we can tweak their Rarity seperate from all other units (this should be possible to do) then we can make them too expensive to purchase with Rarity on. That is what my current plan is. You mean the ordnance, not the units as such ? The pioneer ordnance is (in theory) available for any infantry unit even in QB but because of rarity options the infantry unit getting a demolition charge would be exorbitantly and prohibitively priced.

In the end my opponent had the Puma and the PzKw-IV left. All his infantry was expended. Not that my paras were much better off. But at least I had some cohesion and I could advance in a coordinated fashion. The game crapped out five turns ahead of time, one turn after the PzKw-IV arrived in the scene. :mad: I took the cautious approach after the first turn. I tried to keep a tight reign on the squads and I succeeded. This may have cost me the game as I was just getting close to the VP's when the game crapped out. Anyways, I do not think I suffered any friendly fire casualties. Some freak occurances did take place, like my FT could not hit the house it was aiming at..... also the HQ units seemed to be very prone to charge ahead and get killed if they were not under any orders.... which was not nice. I lost my jeeps pretty soon after they arrived. The 6pounder I did not get to use at all. Where the hell were the PIATs in this scen ?

Originally posted by Big Time Software: Tero, thanks for the information. Yet another voice for small teams vs. larger formations. One more consideration: IMO there should not be conscript or green Pioneers, only regular or better. Even when playing with the lowest troop quality setting the Pioneers should be regular (or better). This because they are skilled specialists. Sometimes even contruction professionals trained in the craft even before they enter the service. No to boobytraps and specialized mines Can't say I'm dumbfouded by surprise at this statement. SnarkerII, I think something along these lines would be accurate. Half squads, sounds reasonable. Inherent limitations...hmmmm... they are skilled specialists, having them hit with default, built in morale reduction and other related penalties defeats the purpose and fucntions of the Pioneers in combat. I'd say independent HMG squads would make more appropriate refrence points. Yes, that is something to consider. In general we do not like to restrict things like this unless it is very, very rare. I will see if we can do something which would make Pioneer Battalions and Companies super rare, but teams not unreasonably available. If Charles can't code it up this way (I am pretty sure it is already possible) then the Battalion and Company formations will be left out of the game. Could you make the Pioneer stuff available for regular infantry in the editor ? That way you could use existing force structures and the designer could equip the troops with both infantry and pioneer stuff as needed.

Originally posted by Big Time Software: The core of the question was if the Finns used their Pioneers in regular infantry roles like other nations. I'd say only when absolutely unavoidable. A couple of typical Pioneer tasks: - an infantry force comes across a defensive line made out of dug outs, gun pits, bunkers, pill boxes and perhaps minefields. They call in the Pioneers to help dealing with the obstacles and bring in required extra firepower to KO the tougher nuts they know or suspect need special attention - an infantry force encounters armour (new, never encountered before models) their integrated AT assets can not deal with. This especially before 1943. Conversly, the regular Finnish infantry had for example the skills and carried the (non-powered) tools to work timber so they could construct wooden bunkers on their own. The regular Finnish infantry did not need the Pioneers to perform "every day" task like felling timber for them. In combat the Pioneers carried out specialized tasks mainly because they carried the extra Umphf and had the necessary demolition know-how and skills. During attack they took care of the obstacles and peskier bunkers and tanks. During retreat they would demolish bridges, possible FO locations (bell towers and high chimneys) and if they had time buildings the fleeing refugees did not have time to set on fire themselves. They also left behind booby traps and mines, both conventional and ones detonated by a timer (BTW: high power delay detonated mines and booby traps would be neat gizmos to have in CMBB. Please ?)

Originally posted by Andreas: If all that was that easy, why did they bother with the funny-coloured measuring sticks? To do a proper site preparation in prepared defences scenarios ? Just from a quick 'few seconds' glance through your magical Scherenfernrohr There were two of them, remember. One was the spit binocular type on the tripod (also used in vehicles by the commander), the other the 70cm or 1m long tube binocular range finder held on the shoulder. I do not have proper names on me. Sorry. you know the distance to a spot 2km hence accurately enough to hit a small moving object? How often were targets actually engaged at that range ? My frame of reference predisposes me to think in terms of 15 to 1000 meters range. I would like to hear that from someone who has actually done it, under combat conditions. I would also like to know how often were the targets engaged at that range and how often closer. At 2000 meters things like cross wind and other similar occurances affect the aiming too arbitrarily. Also, I am reasonably certain that you assume that far more info was passed on to the gunners than was the case in reality. Remember that below platoon level (and often below battalion level) at least the Germans preferred to give orders orally. Which means they had to be succinct. The examples of these orders that I have seen talked about go in no way towards the detail you assume. In attack the orders could sound something like "Your target is the village Stalinville 2000 meters behind the enemy lines. Note this high hill, point 140,8 on your map, 400 meters in front of the village. Any OP on that hill can observe all movements in the immediate region. Also note the tree line 600 meters to the left of the village. The only road leading to and from the village runs north to south between the hill and the village. Your fire support assets will include....." What is wrong with TRPs? Except that you don't like them as a modelling tool? There is nothing wrong with them as such. I just think that the ambush command should include the TRP feature for the non-OBA units. IMO the TRP is solely an arty tool. How could a tank know the fireplan and select only the TRP spot as a ranged spot, especially if it has moved around alot during the battle ? Have you actually ever tried using them for DF guns? I have never used them in that manner. I feel it is too constrictive and a waste of resources. I use my TRP's in the historical manner: to call in arty fast in locations where speed is more of the essence than accuracy. (And lets not go in to that when talking about OBA barrages. ) I place them in locations where the FO can not obtain a visual on the target even when using a HQ unit as a go-between. I also place them in locations no friendly unit can not get a visual on or is too far away to fire on the enemy entering the spot (reverse slopes, choke points between woods etc).

Originally posted by ParaBellum: Nope, since in the manual it's stated, that "Other on-map ordnance...can use TRPs as well...they gain a considerable accuracy bonus because they are considered to have "boresighted" or "ranged" their weapons to the TRP before battle.". My mistake. ALL on-map ordnance in CM is artillery. I wonder how for example a Tiger would know a spot has been designated a TRP by the artillery. And a spot 50 meters to the left of the TRP is not TRP and thus not boresighted/ranges ?

Originally posted by Doug Beman: Therefore, if (since) CM considers that gun/sight calibration is not 100% perfect, then CM's gunfire is going to be less-than-perfect. That disregards one crucial factor: if a gun is found to have the sight/bore misaligned it would degrade the accuracy only for the first time it is fired. For all subsequent new targets the gunner would know how much the sight is out of whack and he can compensate accodingly. Even a new gunner would be aware of this since these things get logged in in the gun log book. If the defect was discovered before the battle begins the gunner would have the remedy already prepared (since the trial shots have been fired) before the battle begins. I am of course assuming the gunners have gone through basic training and/or are not total morons.

Originally posted by Moon: Tero - that option (english game, english and finnish manual) was not given because it wouldn't make sense from a financial point of view. Manuals are what is mose expensive in production, so offering two printed manuals simply is not possible, unless we raise the price. How much would it cost to have either of them (IMO the Finnish) as a PDF on the disk and the other (the English) as printed matter ?

A couple of ideas spring to mind: Independent small teams: their designated task in CMBB scope would include mainly mine clearing, smoke laying and mg-nest/bunker/tank busting they would be parceled out in that manner. Special "assault infantry" squad/company with the infantry element equipped (perhaps) with extra automatic weapons and "regular" demolition charges and integrated engineer team(s) in the platoon organization for specialized duties.

There was one option missiong: English game, manual both in Finnish and English

Originally posted by ParaBellum: So, I know this test isn't very exact, I should've made more tests, but I think it shows pretty much that a TRP greatly improves your accuracy. It also proves the Tiger is not an armoured unit but an arty unit. Hope that helps. It does, actually.

Originally posted by Doug Beman: I never stated that "ambushes don't give the ambusher any bonus." It sounded like you said "ambushes should not give the ambusher any bonus" though. I also will accept your evidence that ambushing tanks/guns would have a better chance at first round hit, as long as they did, indeed, do the necessary legwork. So the only remaining point of order is the timeframe this legwork could be performed. If a battle is created specifically as an assault against defenses which had time to prepare, the scenario designer should include (or the defending player in a QB) TRPs which are situated appropriately. That would mean the terrain right in front of and behind the defender would have to be one big TRP for the defender. However, fudging something (or perhaps a different fudge than the one we have now) wouldn't be a good move. Without getting a message from God himself, we'll never know. I'd settle even for an offical word from BTS. I didn't say that it was. I said that we can't justify fudging DF accuracy because of an existing fudge on OBA. "Two fudges don't make a brownie" or something. True. But TRP's being modelled to be used in conjuncture with OBA it would require the DF guns should be included in the fire plan with each and every of their potential position logged in (essentially every inch of the map) so they know the coordinates of the TRP in relation to their position which ellidgible for change all the time. Conversely the DF guns would have to be able to do the site preparation for each and every new location they enter in real time so they would know their exact coordinates at all times to be able to utilize the TRP data. And they would have to know all the pertinent terrain data (elevation, relation of their position to the TRP etc). To my knowledge only the überFinnish indirect fire arty was capable of such precision site preparation in the time frame alloted to the CM combat sequence. And even then it would take them at least 10 minutes after taking up positions to get the the guns firing. Once the gun and the sight don't point on the same line, putting the sight on a point won't get the correct range no matter how long the sight is on. You'd have to fire a round, get corroboration (as you described) or pace-off the distance. Actually pacing-off does not help because you would have to be able to determine how much the difference is and if it remains constant after each shot. And if it is constant it would not affect the range determination that much. The gunner would only have to know how much he has to aim off to hit the location his cross hair is pointing. If the aim off is big enough and it would be outside the view sector of the scope the gun would be virtually useless against close up moving targets as the gunner would have track the target and re-align after every shot. [ April 26, 2002, 04:21 PM: Message edited by: tero ]

Originally posted by Doug Beman: so, tero, you're stating that CMBO tank gunner X should be able to get an accurate-enough range using that method. Actually, the CMBO AT gunner X should be the one to get accurate-enough range using that method. If a vehicle is equipped with the arty Stereoscopic range finder (like a Stug would be) then it should be ellidgible for the accurate-enough range. How long did that take, and how accurate was it? That depends. What kind of pre-battle intel have they received ? Usually a sit-rep or frag-or includes landmarks, terrain features and distances to them from the base line. A slow moving gun arrives at a location. Has the gun commander taken part in hauling it or has he gone ahead with X number of men to prepare the site and scout the fire lanes, ranges ect ? Lets say it takes 5 minutes to haul the gun and 1 minute to set it up. I would recon that would be enough to get the ranges if the crew has the proper equipment of course. For tanks it is a little different. But if they see an enemy tank on a hill they know was 2000 meters from the base line and they know they have travelled 500 meters from that base line the ball park is there. If they have the proper equipment and are can observe in (relative) peace then I would assume they would get the figure close enough within a few seconds. so we should rectify a perceived inaccuracy (ie lower-than-normal hit % for tanks in ambush position) by applying a known arbitrary generalization (ie infallibility of OBA) You know what I mean. There are already 100% perfect/imperfect features. What does a new one hurt if it is justified, quantifiable and within reason ? , or else justify any change made to the gunnery inaccuracy in light of "well, we fudged it for OBA, so let's fudge it in tank gunnery too." Redirect, your Honour: I trust you are aware different quality optics are a no-no according to BTS. All optics in the game are equally perfect or lousy, depending on how you look at it. Gun zeroing: do not rightly know what you mean but for all I know each and every army kept log books on all the guns noting ballistically relevant data and changes in them. The performance of the gun was known, so were any quirks in it. The sight/bore alignment could go sour, but that is something you would monitor all the time. Gunners getting the range correct all the time: I trust there would be a way to model statistical occurances quite accurately, even if the AT guns and ambushing AFV's got a bonus. (assuming we know those conditions with 100% accuracy which, in this case, we really don't) while running on Joe Consumer's computer. When it comes to ballistics, athmospherics and other data pertinent to gunnery the conditions are known 100%. And you can work them with a slideruler. The only thing missing (when talking about WWII tank gunnery) is reliable statistical data to formulate historical hit/miss occurance per shot percentages. As for direct fire arty: firing tables deviced to aid in indirect fire are not relevant when determining hit chances. The fudge on OBA hurts accuracy but not as much, IMHO, as would fudging a boost for tank accuracy. Almost immediately gamers would begin yelling "nobody ever misses" and conducting an attack would be nigh-impossible (assuming that defenders are more often using the boosted ambush accuracy fix, or similar) Hmmmmmm... why would the military use ambushes IRL if they do not yield better results than gunnnery duels over distances ?

Originally posted by Doug Beman: tero, in the absence of laser rangefinders, the process of accuractly determining distances requires firing ranging shots, or close coordination among 2+ units right next to each other (ie one gunner says "I get 1350m" and the other says "I get 1310m") or having somebody pace-off the range to "that tree right where we think the bad guy's tanks will appear." A handheld stereoscopic range finder will get you in the ball park far more easily. Even regular military binoculars have graduation to determine distances. Training aids like 3D cardboard silhouettes, pictures and the like were used to train gunners to recognize enemy models and determine the range of an indentified enemy model by using the guns sight graduation to determine the distance to the target when the height and lenght of the model was known. If a tank or ATgun with faulty optics, badly zero'd gun, battle-damaged sights, human-error-gunner, etc sets up an ambush, it MATTERS NOT how long it stare at "that tree;" it will still have an inaccurate range. Only, some 80 to 90% of the actual range finding is done with other methods than the actual gun sight. The procedure runs (both in tanks and in guns): 1) the commander calls in the target and its estimated range (How can he call it if it is totally indeterminable ?) If there are faulty optics, badly zero'd gun, battle-damaged sights involved then he is not a fit commander (or the crew is no good) if he is not aware of these things. A human-error-gunner: he should be aware of the abilities of the gunner. Mistakes happen but it does not take long to spot a generally lousy shots. 2) the gunner lays the gun and fires either on command (which would require a ready signal from the gunner to the commander) or when he feels he has the best chance of hitting the target. 3) the commander calls in the range corrections as needed. Otherwise, CM would HAVE TO ASSUME that EVERY tank & ATgun has PERFECT optics and gun-zeroing, and gunners ALWAYS get the right range. Well, the OBA barrages (also the on board arty) are 100% free of duds, misfires and tube detonations. 100% of certain tank models have generically weakened armour plating. 100% of certain tank models have the gyrostabilizers on or "partially on" with 0% failure or malfunction rate for said gyrostabilizer. [ April 25, 2002, 08:50 AM: Message edited by: tero ]

Originally posted by Andreas: Tero, I wonder what is so hard to understand in the sentence 'CMBO uses TRPs to model zeroed-in guns - if you do not have a TRP, your gun is presumed not zeroed-in in CMBO'. Please enlighten me. TRP's are used in CMBO mainly with OBA. The ambush command is basically only a "focus on this spot" command. If a unit under ambush command sits there for X turns what does it do, fill in a cross word puzzle while they are waiting some poor sap to come along ? IMO ambush command, as it is now represented in CMBO, does not reflect the procedure realistically. IRL when you set up an ambush, even a hasty one, one of the first things you do is determine the distances to various points in the kill zone. This is done to facilitate aiming when it is time to open fire. That does not quarantee first shot hits in 100% of the cases but it improves the odds markedly. Is really firing ranging shots the only way to zero in direct fire guns ? Each and every gun has firing tables and a host of other aids to facilitate aiming. The gun crew quality does figure in. But I have always been under the impression the difference between a veteran gunner and a green gunner also includes judgement, not just clinical performance. A green gunner is more likely to take a low odds shot than a veteran gunner. Conversely a veteran gunner should be more apt to hit with the first shot than a green gunner. As for in-game data, I have seen a crack Tiger kill a Cromwell with the first shot at 1,600+m, and regular Panzer IVs achieve 2nd or 3rd shot kills on Shermans at 1,800+m distance. I have also seen a Jagdpanzer IVL70 kill two Shermans at 1,400m or thereabouts with five shots. How have your AT guns fared ? Anyone wanting to observe long-range tank gunnery in CMBO and the difference between Panzer Ivs and Shermans should play 'Cintheaux Totalize' from Der Kessel. I'll check it out.

Originally posted by Andreas: I guess I don't play enough to have that sort of data. As it happens I had a veteran 8cm PAW take out a SuperPershing with the second shot from the flank at 1300 meters. Yet another one for the HC round over AP shot hall of fame ? BTW - if you want to simulate zeroing in of AT guns, you need to use TRPs on the spot where the gun is zeroed in to. It is my understanding that the presence of a TRP increases to hit chance. It follows that zeroing in is in fact modelled through TRPs, and all claims about guns missing at first shots are talking about non-zeroed in guns, unless a TRP was present. Why is it assumed a (gun) crew would not track its target before firing if it has the advantage and benefit of surprise ? Snap shots in a melee are one thing , opening up from a concealed /previously unspotted location another. I would assume the quality of the crew would have an effect on the opening of fire but as things stand an elite crew opens up at the same time a green crew does. I always assumed shooting from the hip was a figment of Hollywood movie makers imagination. This also brings up an interesting point: does the ambush command include this kind of feature ?

I have seen dead squad markers defy gravity with their feet toutching the ground and the head floating in thin air. That was on a 45º slope mind you.

Originally posted by Andreas: I think these two are probably at the outer ends of the bell-curve for what the gun could do. Anything in between is an acceptable result to me. I think the issue is one of statistical consistency. First shot misses did occur as well as first shot hits. But IMO the first shot misses did not occur as consistently as they occur in CM now especially if the conditions are ideal, like first shot from an ambush position. An example from a recent PBEM: A 88 FLAK in a previously unspotted location vs a British TD, range around 700 meters. 88: first shot, miss, British TD first shot: miss, 88 second shot: miss, British TD second shot: miss. 88 third shot: miss, British TD third shot: 88 KO'd. Nothing wrong with that in itself, **** happens. Only, when you see this kind of thing consistently over a number of games it does make you wonder if there is something amiss in the modelling.

Then there are those Kodak momemnts when an AT gun opens fire at say 300 meters from a previously concealed and unspotted position at (a flank of) an Allied tank (with fast turret). More often than not the AT guns misses the first two shots and gets killed with the first HE round from the tank. Mind you, I think this could also be a mount issue. The AT guns gets a bum rap because it is not mounted on a vehicle. IIRC the first shot hit propabilities are rated by the mount rather than by the weapons system (particular gun + ranging/targeting methods and equipment). Since all these modifier values are 0 for the AT guns their first shot hit propability seems to be too low compared to the RL occurances.

Can I play too ?

Originally posted by Treeburst155: Here is your final scenario with the Nabla score inserted. You can now determine who did the best in each scenario if you want. Jarmo took the honors in this one. Everybody gets lucky sometimes. Or unlucky as the case may be. I must say that crapping out due to mutual poor global morale with 5 turns on the clock biased this scen against me. And quite heavily as it seems. My opponent was left with a minuscule rag tag infantry force and two AFV's while I still had a sizable infantry force at my disposal. Yes, I do feel bloody cheated and sore about this particular scen. Don't forget to sign up for the new tourney if feel you have the time to participate. You are all invited. I don't think the four finalists will have to worry about any overlap of their playoff with the new tourney. Where is the dotted line so I can sign up ?

Originally posted by Doug Beman: There's a big difference between being a skilled FO and leading infantry troops in combat. DjB Knowledge is power. Especially in the battle field. I do agree, actual command ability the FO's is dubious. That is why I said "limited command capability". Having information about the overall situation and conveying that to infantry units should not be beyond the FO's. I am assuming the cut of infantry squads have received rudimentary training and they have received a standard amount of info and intel concerning their overall mission. Cut off from the command unit increases their command delay. I think it is fair to assume being in contact with a FO unit with lines of communication open would decrease that command delay as they could be thought to be in contact with a higher HQ using that FO teams com link. I know, they will propably be using a different net. But an experienced FO can deduct very much by the fire mission data he hears over that net. He is in the know about how the battle is going and could convey that knowledge to the infantry. IMO that knowledge would translate to shorter command delays almost as effectively as being in direct contact with a HQ unit. [ April 19, 2002, 08:42 AM: Message edited by: tero ]

How's this for an idea: give the FO limited command ability so they can rally and lead leaderless infantry squads around them. Reasoning: the FO team is usually the best informed unit in the field, given their better than average communications.

Originally posted by Cpl Carrot: How did you guys take out the FlammHetzer? I was VERY lucky and got a 'lower hull at weak point' with a Stuart on its very first shot. Man I was stoked over that. I got lucky. I assume my opponent tried to make it turn at a street corner to face my infantry and instead it started a full 360 the wrong way. It ended up mooning my troops and I got to nail it with a shot up the tailpipe from across the river. [ April 18, 2002, 05:31 PM: Message edited by: tero ]

Could this be related to the "Thou shalt not target a building with unspotted enemy troops in it" bug ?