The_Capt

Well just like an ol' warhorse, it takes me a few to get warmed up. Game complete with Sajer, Heavy fog slugfest. Vis was 83m at best. Good game. The_Capt 73 Sajer 27

Ahh the age ole cry of the goon. "Why can't she just leave me alone, until I want sex?!!" Tricky situation. Try adding a couple of youngsters and you will find out just how hard it can be to have this hobby. Why do women hate the game...well because they want to be the centre of your life and for all things to revolve around them. In return they spend all of your money, produce children (who take all of your money and then step over your dead body to get out the door) and sometimes let you have sex. CM to them is "the other woman". You desire it and love it. It is a threat and must be destroyed. So they often use tactic number one...The Nag. Yup nothing ruins a game quicker than a rapid fire Nag from defilade. Then they use the Threat..."stop playing or you can forget about Thur night num nums!!" and eventually you can expect the Silent Treatment...stone cold silence will greet you until they figure you have suffered enough and can be brought back into the glory of their presence. Now without going over the tired ol answers: "Start drinking", "Ask for sex instead, Har Har." and the freakish "Chase her away with a steak knife". What to do. Well here is what I do and it does work most times. First of all abandon all hope of TCP games. They will go thru an evening like stewed prunes thru a short Grandma. Nope best bet is PBEM. They take less time and can be spaced out. AI (or Mom as I like to call it re : "The Bi-Monthly Lurker" #3) isn't too bad but you had better be prepared to walk away now and again. Next "PUT THE GAME DOWN". Yup is may sound crazy but an evening of sitting on the couch watching TV with the ol ball and ch..er lovely bride, may just bank some CM time later. Stop sleeping. If you are young and can handle it, staying up late can get you a fix. Be warned it can lead to the "Late Night Nag" which can really turn a mans bowels to liquid. Take the game to work. Risky but doable, particularly at luch and coffee break. Be forewarned it can begin to take over and if you think The Wife is a threat..try The Boss and see how far you get. Now this is much easier is you are The Boss but then come the guilt issues. Get her into the game. Well like trying to talk her into a threesome, it is pretty much fantasy. Oh ya a few guys "claim" to have pulled it off and there is urban legend but I don't believe it. But you are welcome to try. And if you get luck please tell us how you did it. "ME TIME". Ok if you are really desperate you can try this one but you had better be holding down two jobs and be spending all sorts of time with the little pit vipers..er great kids. Cause if you try this one without the backup you are going to get "The Look" and you credibility for the next few years will be pretty much gone. If it works you may get a few begrudged minutes and some low frequency grumbling but a fix is a fix. Well that is about all I can think of right now. It is a tightrope we walk my friend but I still think you can get a lot out of the game and hey it is cheaper than cars or hunting.

OK a couple of good ideas from the last two post. First, I will try targeting the ground with area fire and let the infantry run thru it maybe we will see just what kind of beaten zone the MGs have by doing that. I will try the wooden MG bunkers and pavement. I will even back them off but I don't think that will help the MG case as firepower bleeds of over distance. Worst case for an attacker in CM will be when the MGs open up at close range in an ambush situation. I will ensure the same exposure time 45-30 seconds, in fact I will narrow it down further to ensure a consistent exposure time. I picked 45-30 because that was how long the squads took to cover the 100m of open ground to the flag while being exposed to MG fire. In the game if you start firing at 1000m you are going to be killed by arty without hitting anybody. In real life again, as the Maj said you can lay down a good beaten zone and get some "bang for the buck". My guess is that at 1000 (well I'll keep it to 500m) that the cas rates will be much lower and all the gain will be is exposing the position. If anybody has Close Combat and is interested, please set up some similar trials so we can compare. My "gut feel" is 25% survival rate for this situation with no formed units effective in real life. Problem is there are no "staff tables" for this so we are going to be guessing. 6 MGs in interlocking defilade firing at about 100m distance from a coy.

Hey Dreadmarsh, Wierd, I have gotten the rest of my turns in, must be a problem at your end. Try wmiron@guigne.com.

Maj Battaglia, The test was designed as a "worst case" for the attacker. As to the sighting of the defender I think we are at a fundemental disagreement. MGs in real life are best sighted to fire from defilade (or from the side). This exploits two things which maximize the effectiveness of the weapon. First of all the "beaten zone" of the MG. It is an oval shaped imaginary area which will receive effective fire at a sustained rate from an MG in the SF role. Keep in mind we are not talking about LMGs on bi-pods but tripod, hardmounted HMGs. Defilade fire puts the oval (and trust me there isn't one in CM or much of one, I have run the test numerous times and I have yet to see an adjacent squad effected by non-targeted fire or take a cas) parallel to the frontage of the position. Two enfilade positions will provide "interlocking defilade fire" as well as mutual support for protection. The second thing it does is exploits the formation of troops in the assault. In order to bring the majority of weapon to bear during an assaut as well as prevent "friendly cas" troops spread out, again parallel to the frontage of the position. Both Soviet and NATO doctrine preach this. So what you get is the oval, covering the advancing troops. Please if this is hard to visualize just let me know and I will try and post a picture. Now in your example of a firing squad, if the SS trops were in front of an MG this makes for a very ineffective use of the weapon. Why, because you have to move the damn thing around to hit one soldier at a time. These had to be REMF troops doing the job. If they had lined up one MMG to fire from the side of the line of SS prisoners your cas rates would be much higher. I have spoken to vetrans of Cyprus who describe "dropping dozens of Turks at a time) with a .50 cal MG sighted as I have described. I have personally seen an Coy cut to pieces by a couple of effectivly sighted MGs (thank God it wasn't one of ours). I think the factors are clear, morale, beaten zone and rate of fire. The question remains as to the degree. As to the range, again I could set them further back but as CM models it, you lose firepower and effectiveness with range. I agree, you could set those Pillboxes back 500ms and still get a very effective fire pattern. The window of the KZ would remain the same however. If you sight your MGs in real life to fire forward at advancing troops even with greater range you will lose effectivness of the weapon, as well as expose it to return direct and indirect fire. Now I will try the test forward firing just to see the effect. I understand quite well integration of weapon systems to complete the "chorus of destructive firepower" but this is an analysis of MGs and their combat power. I think it is the attack defence ratio which tells the tale. In CM you need a very low ratio advantage 1.5 to 1 to carry an attack when in reality 3 to 1 is the min. My question is why? Are MGs the problem or is it somthing else. I have no doubt there is a weakness in MGs but I do not believe it has been well-defined (well at least from what I know) and the solution to the problem has also not been demonstrated. I am hoping this is a case of "all will become clear in time" but it is a concern. I would be curious to know who are the professional military advisors to the team. I know there are a lot on the forum. Now as an aside take 6 MGs in Close Combat and try the same test. I would be interested to see the results.

Wow, Now here is a blast from the past. Sorry there FOOBAR I was on vacation when you posted your question. I don't keep copies of my ramblings so I guess you will have to sacrifice about 20 mins of your life to the unholy alter of the battlefront Search Engine. I would suggest looking for "Lurker" in the title as all of them have it. I think I am up to 5 or 6 now. And when the muse takes me (or Jim Bean as the case may be) I'll put out another.

Paulus, Sure, I'll send it along. We are getting the same cas rate but that NE rate is interesting. It may have to do with formation. I averaged 3.7 over ten run thrus. Now that is only dead, red or ! units. Also if they finished the run not red or ! I counted them as effective. Just did a second test, same setup but with two Pz IVs in place of the Pillboxes and the numbers are truly silly. 1. 25 cas 0 NE 2. 27 cas 2 NE 3. 22 cas 1 NE 4. 30 cas 0 NE 5. 24 cas 0 NE 6. 21 cas 0 NE 7. 26 cas 1 NE 8. 26 cas 2 NE 9. 26 cas 1 NE 10 26 cas 2 NE Avg Cas: 25.3 Avg NE: 0.9 Avg Moral after run 90%. This is running between two PZ IVs which have 2 MGs apiece. Interesting to note that the bow and co-ax can fire at seperate squads but still a dismal result. No main guns fired, I still can't figure that one out. But for a cost of 238 points against a coy in a perfect KZ you get 20.3% cas and about 10% NE. I think there is a problem here.

Oh he's gotten better. I think he's been chained to the game for the last 6 mos. You could also try the Rugged Defence Ladder but TH is the best in town. You can link into the chat room from the main page. They also have the Combined Arms League Ladder if you like realistic play.

Excellent suggestion Spook. I'd happily hand over my .cmb file so that they or anyone can try the same test. I am running the test with Armour right now and I can tell the results are also very poor in terms of stopping power. It is my estimate that the MG Pillbox will yield the highest cas rates, which it should.

Major, Abstractions are well understood it is the casualty rates which tell the story. First of all if the troops are firing and moving than they are not going to cover 100ms in 30 secs or so (I timed it). Maybe three times as long. So the boys are moving like they are in a full out jog in full gear, not hitting the ground and getting back up. The grouping of squads in Heuy, Dewey and Louey is very abstract. If someone is cowering than the squad should take a casuality..a psychological casuality. Or you are going to have a squad spread out over 100ms. Dispersion, which is a key to countering both Arty and MG fire is abstracted but by how much? Based on the casualty rates I see, a little too much. A good deal of those cas were in the squads which were NE not in addition too. So you cannot add 28% and 28% to get 56%. I agree that some people won the CMOH by charging MGs but what I have seen is a Coy win the medal 10 times with about 60-70% of it's force intact at the end. This is running between 2 MG Pillboxes, firing a total of 6 MGs, at less than 200ms!! "Quiet a loss for 90 seconds work"?! 6 MG 42s firing from defilade on troops over open (even with a few dips and stumps)!! I am sorry but there is more than "a few finer points" which need to be addressed here. You would be lucky to get 25% of a force thru and in reality probably 0%. Now maybe the problem is with pillboxes but HMGs just gave lower numbers.

I think we should pool resources throughout the forum, (a la the Wine Tourneys) and offer the collective wealth to Steve and Charles as an Early Completion Bonus. They have to finish the game by X-mas at which time we'll hand over the loot. Or in the event one of them should expire due to blood loose via the fingers or dehydration than their wives/girlfriends/Moms will receive the bonus. I will start: I will pledge a bottle of Newfie Screech and three Cod fillets.

Now there is another thread topic right there. How does CM compare to other wargames wrt realism. I too would like to see some hard stats on the improvements/changes in CMBB. Of course a demo would answer a lot of questions

Just don't play VS here cause he is always looking for the next victim.

OK to respond to a couple of people. Paulus, I set it up so that the Coy comes under fire from two defilade positions for about 45 secs. The first 45 were just getting from the Start Line to coming under fire. I put the Pill boxes on the back side of two facing clumps of trees about 140m apart and ran the troops between them. The coy was under fire for between 45 and 30 seconds. If your guys were under fire for the full 90 it may explain why your results are much higher. And may infact be a good insight into sighting of MG in order for them to work in CM. How did you set up. Vanir Ausif, It has been said that the first two points will be in CM2 but that is like saying "it is in the Bible". I was wondering if anybody has heard anything more specific on the subject. Group morale is portrayed by global but morale and it's effects are much more complex than that. Sub-units will suffer varying morale effects based on what is happening. One Platoon could be pinned but it may cause the whole Coy to react. Or the same but at a smaller scale for squads. Again, no idea what that will do to the game but it is just a thought. Monty, Whoa there partner!! I would be careful in calling CM "Wargaming Lite" in these parts. Could get you tarred and feathered. Hate to say it but I agree with your statement. The game does sacrifice realism for playability. It is a question of degree. I think a "user adjustable" realism option would do a lot to address this but again I have no idea what that would take to do, so I won't stomp my feet to loudly for it. A good question though...is CM a light or dark wargame. I get the feeling it is a light amber but many would violently disagree and call it Black Bitter. One thing we can agree on is that it is fun.

I think there are three more factors a) Rate of fire. It is situational and a "rapid rate" is needed. Beaten zone. Or "grazing fire". This allows the effectivness to be distributed (like in real life) over an oval shaped area. c) Group suppression. If squad A sees squad B getting cut to pieces, they are going to hit the dirt and stay there. As will C,D and F. Because the aren't suicidal. I used Vet infantry and Regular Pillboxes. Vets are readily available and used quite often in the game. I will try with Regular to see the difference. It should effet NE units but I don't expect a difference in casualty numbers. I know of no studies done so I am comparing result to my own training, military history reading and personal experience. I doubt any evidence is available but in my opinion "something ain't right". As to "dead ground" or cover in open terrain. I understand that abstract but then troops should be hitting that cover and staying there, instead they gleefully sprint thru the MG fields of fire with stopping. As to "alternate bounds" or "pepper-potting" as we call it. Well 150m in 90 seconds in full gear is just plain silly. I think, as it has been mentioned, that the running speed of troops is going to be re-tooled in CMBB and with good reason. I would really like to see a "beaten zone" from the MGs so that their fire could effect multiple units over a wide area and not one squad at a time. The same goes for squads. The nature of CMBO is chesslike with an alomost 1 for 1 force ration needed when in real life it is 3 to 1. IE one squad should take up the time and effort of a platoon.

OK first of all I know this has been covered before and that the boys are looking at the problem for CMBB. But I thought that I would run a test or two just to see the situation myself. I set up a defile of open ground about 140m wide. Then I took a 44 Vet Rifle Coy (minus support stuff), so 9 squads, 3 Pl HQs and 1 Coy HQ and ran them thru the defile towards a flag. On Opposites sides of the strip of open ground I posted to MG Pillboxes (3 MGs each according to unit stats). So from my experience and readings I have done on WWI, unsupported infantry should not be able to get thru that defile to the flag without horrendous casualties, if at all. I mean we are talking 6 MGs spraying a 140m piece of open ground unsuppressed in broad daylight. So I ran a 90 second test run, 10 times to get averages. The results: # cas and NE (Non effective units, ie went dead, red or ! during the 90 sec) 1. 25 cas 2 NE 2. 40 cas 2 NE 3. 31 cas 4 NE 4. 39 cas 7 NE 5. 23 cas 3 NE 6. 40 cas 6 NE 7. 63 cas 5 NE 8. 32 cas 3 NE 9. 34 cas 2 NE 10. 37 cas 3 NE Average casualties: 36.4 Average NE: 3.7 Avg % casualties: 28.8% Avg % NE: 28.5% I ran the test with HMGs, the numbers were much lower so I stuck with the worst case, which is 2 MG Pillboxes. I personally think these numbers are very low compared to reality. I think they have made CMBO an "infantry heavy" game. I am going to run tests with armour to see what the averages are but my guess is they will be in the same neighborhood. There is no doubt in my professional military mind that a company would take much higher casualties in the above situation. At least twice as many if not more. I think this is one of the most unrealistic elements of CM. But as I said before the boys are addressing the issue. I would be happy to hear how and if we can expect to see more realistic MG performance in CM2.

Wow good question! Without having tested it my gut feel from experience is that higher calibre have larger footprints. On board mortars tightly sighted will give a very tight footprint while 7.2 inch guns are much larger. That is a short answer but I think some teating is required here.

From my experience the pattern or "footprint" has to do with from which side of the board you own at game start. The oval always seems to point perpendicular to my "side". So if I start a game on the East or West side the footprint runs E-W. North-South do the same thing. It makes sense if you think of your guns/mortars being behind you.

Two things: Spec Arty and lots of it Infantry, you can never have enough. Leave the tanks at home, they are sitting ducks to AT teams.

I have to concur with the observation by the good Col, the main guns are not used enough. I am sorry, I have seen tanks in live fire and if you get a bunch firing at a localized area, infantry are going to go to ground. If you get a Sqn or 14-16, which is what current armoured doctrine calls for (based a lot of course from lessons in WWII) the amount of direct AP and AT firepower which can be laid down is staggering. So a single tank may not be able to stop an assault with HE but a troop sure as hell could.

No what people should take away is "where" not to present an arguement. I'll take that point, I obviously dropped the idea into the middle of an old debate and it got lost in the static. What I will take away from this is a good line I heard somewhere. "A person is smart, people are stupid". An otherwise intelligent human being can become extremely narrow and stunted when dropped into a mob. I take issue with the "mob mentality" shown here and I also think there is not a lot I can do about it. Only to say that it stifles new ideas. I wouldn't be surprised (and as someone mentioned did) had the idea of "we-go" been presented on an old-fashion turn based wargame forum, a mob would have formed with a bunch of seemingly good arguements as to why it shouldn't be made. I think this forum has become that which it has despised and the Veterans want to stay that way. It has become a personal club to some and that is counter-productive. Now that is my last on this, because I am getting the feeling I am raging at windmills here. One can only point out a problem to those who are willing to see it.

And he just couldn't let it go. Steve, I don't know about anybody else but I think the frustration on my part raged over the "stomping on ideas" without even considering the idea being put forward. You say "RTS" and the blinders go up and the rhetoric comes out. What I was suggesting didn't even resemble Dune or the other bushel of RTS games. I was speaking about modeling CCC realistically. And was trying to open a discussion on it. But that was pretty much immpossible. I think one person read what I had to say while the rest just made noise. I can tell you it was very dissappointing to see the blind bullying which resulted. BTS position is clear, which is fine by me. You guys have a good product and are sticking to it. Now someone else can try if they choose. And perhaps I should have moved my comments to the General Forum. I only post this because I think this thread has ended on a note which encourages this type of behaviour in the future. I saw a lot of backpatting and "we told ya so". There is nothing to be proud here IMO. Where is this forum going if the tone is "nothing new here" and "tow the party line". Now I'll admit to stirring things up and probably sparking a lot but the "blind party line" was pretty bad. Anyway last word from me.

Ok last one and then I will attempt to get on with my life. Slapdragon, please read my post. I mean if we are going to flame each other, it will give a common ground at from which to hurl matches from. I did read yours and perhaps my sarcastic response sailed over some heads and died out beyond the wire. So for the last time: I do not exect BTS to "drop everything" in favour of an RTS. I was and still am simply suggesting a "new idea" about CM in real time. Yes it is quite a departure from the current game but I think it has merit. Please do not keep grouping me in with this "RTS group" of which you keep mentioning. I have no idea of whom you are talking. I was offering an idea, one which no one has really given a good reason why it wouldn't work, especially as on online multiplayer game. BTS took a chance on CM, they have admitted that it is far more successful than they could have hoped. It was a solid idea by gamer for gamers. I am suggesting something similar. It you think the twitch RTS crowd will go for a game in which the sound of gunfire may be the best indication that a sub-unit has come under contact, I thinkyou are mistaken. Whilst, hard core wargamers may find it challenging. Someone mentioned that it should be done from a map because that is what commanders saw. Not true, I belive Bn COs could see 3D terrain and didn't stay in the CP the entire time. 3D terrain is wondeful, you can sight positions and do actual terrain analysis. Hell one of the scenarios which came with the CD suggested that you stick in the position of the Coy Comd or "look over his shoulder" for a real challenge. Realism is what we are aiming for. Without the blood of course. I find it funny that discussions will rage on as to how many mm of face hardened steel a German 50mm AP round will penetrate taking wind resistance and altitude into account but when I suggest as "type of CM" which would portray the CCC issues in a far more realistic manner the knives come out. Very odd by my mind, because CCC is far more important to tactics and planning than all of the nuts and bolts stuff. I don't know, I am a professional military man and maybe that is just how I see it. Anyway there it is, now someone can "do a search" and find my idea and argue with you Mr Slapdragon all over again in a few months.

I am not sure why it turns into a flame war. I think it has to do with strong loyalty to the current game. I am afraid it has turned into a fear of anything new. Hell guys I really like this game to and never expect BTS to deviate too far from it. It doesn't mean I cannot entertain new ideas and suggestions. I cannot figure out why this topic raises such ire. Sad really, it is just a game. As to the Search Engine, I am sorry I have given up on the thing. Way too slow and often I can't find the topics. I guess I am too "twitchy". The search engine should not discourage new discussion anyway. Saying "it's in the Search Engine" is like saying "it's in the Bible" uh thanks but maybe I'll just post. Hell a whole new group might want to pick it up and talk about it. I have never been involved in a RTS discussion that I recall and now I can put in my idea. If BTS et al don't like then don't. We can even discuss rationally why but when cranky old posters come out swinging like this is their personal club, it does get my back up.

And now for Mr Slapdragon, I have no Admin tag, it would say Admin next to my handle if I was. But you can tell I am a well mannered gentleman by the fact that I don't come crawling out of the woodwork and screech every time a newbie posts something which has been covered before, like they were tap dancing in my new born babe. In an effort to educate I was trying to point out that people who do this are no better than bullies. They lack the ability to enter into constructive discussion so they bluster and throw old arguments at people. Oh ya and tell them "to do a search". As to the topic, well it is your opinion that it is poorly supported and a waste of time. Thank you I got that on page one but please feel free to re-state it an slam anybody who says otherwise. It is a free board after all. At no point am I slamming BTS or demanding a response. That would, like slamming any idea, be entirely rude. It is an idea with merit if done properly. And I for one am interested in discussing it. If you find that offensive please move along to something with more substance..like the Peng threads. I am not pro RTS, I hate the things in fact. But what I am proposing is not RTS in the classical sense. It would require new tactics and methodology as well as enhance the current aspects of the game towards something truly realistic. Again, I guess the marketing study has been done. Lord knows wargamers would never want something even more realistic. Something which models loss of communication and control. Whoops, someone had better give the boys a heads up cause they are trying some naughty stuff in CM2 which may just be teetering on the insane. I am sure finacial ruin, selling organs for cheap wine and dumpster cuisine will follow. Ah yes, well somehow Mr Slapdragons thumb on the pulse of what wargamers want and how best to use the BTS resources lie within his sole opinion. I have not seen one marketing questionaire on this board and as a customer have yet to receive one in the mail. Sniff, I do feel left out. I guess I am the only one who is making a hypothesis and Mr Slapdragon has iron clad numbers and documentation to support his "no one will buy it claim". If that is so I do retract my statement. You are absolutly correct no modern military training Officers and NCOs in the e-battlefield would want an of the shelf product which could do it for them. I guess the effort and money spent so far would not give that indication. The fact that I, as a unit CO would buy a dozen copies also seems to be irrevelant. Oh wait I know at least three other COs who would do the same...nevermind I am sure we are all the exception. Ah and thank you for that enlightening view of "the business". So I guess that no one else out there could ever try and muscle into this "niche business". Perhaps the exceptional profits of one small company are enough to deter it. New ideas would be bad, in order to stay ahead they should be crushed. Oh and finally I am sorry, I hadn't realised that "the boys" had dropped everything to chase after my rainbow. I mean I should have, I posted it on this forum and they normally "jump to" the second it lands here. I did not mean to delay CM2 for the month I am sure my posts have costs the company. Please tell them to return to CM2 because my idea is just that an idea. Not a demand or threat. I guess almost everyone out there must be running with it...wait if everyone here chases after my idea it will spread and bring the downfall of Western Civilization...what if Bill Gates gets his hands on it! Oh wait let's not get silly. I had not realized that original thought could be so dangerous, yes we will stop at once. Now let's all discuss how perfect CM is and how "the boys" should keep churning out the same game for the next 25 yrs and keep the greenbacks rolling in.