Wreck

I also expected to see lower exposure*firepower/casualty. But that's what I got. Such tests are easy to run (I did all fire in perhaps an hour), so I encourage others to do some. I think it very likely that exposure*firepower is not the only thing which determines casualties. I don't think a roundoff error or two is going to cause something like this to double or triple. On the other hand, the tests do show pretty clearly that foxholes are relatively bad cover, at least versus American 1917 HMGs at medium range. Since I have no reason to think otherwise, I assume that foxholes are poor cover against firepower from any source. BTS, why are foxholes such lousy terrain in CMBO? Will this be fixed in CMBB?

Firing range. American attackers w/ 1917 HMGs. Targets: 9 elite German rifle 44s. 18 HMGs; 2 per defender. Range: 293m. Firepower: 45. Test 1: targets in scattered trees plus foxholes. Exposure for targets displayed: 21%. Total shots fired: 2124 Casualties: 27 firepower/casualty: 3540 exposure*firepower/casualty: 743 Test 2: targets in open plus foxholes. Exposure for targets displayed: 40% Total shots fired: 2122 Casualties: 42 firepower/casualty: 2274 exposure*firepower/casualty: 909 Test 3: targets in rough. Exposure for targets displayed: 25% Total shots fired: 2123 Casualties: 27 firepower/casualty: 3538 exposure*firepower/casualty: 885 Test 4: targets in stone buildings. Exposure for targets displayed: 11% Total shots fired: 2155 Casualties: 19 firepower/casualty: 5104 exposure*firepower/casualty: 561 Test 5: targets in scattered trees (no foxholes). Exposure for targets displayed: 30% Total shots fired: 2137 Casualties: 28 firepower/casualty: 3434 exposure*firepower/casualty: 1030

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr> A lot of the defensive weakness is actually the MG-no-emergency-bursts and the too-much-fire-when-running issues <hr></blockquote> I disagree. The main problem with CMBO for modelling defenses is that firepower (including MGs), doesn't slow and stop enemy infantry movement. It isn't that MGs don't close defend well. Firing when running should be impossible, but it tends to be a minor part of any attack. This is related to the complaint I make above, about moving infantry being no more exposed than nonmoving infantry (excepting crawling behind walls). In reality moving was considerably more hazardous for almost any terrain type. This probably makes a much bigger difference in attack:defense dynamics than foxhole tweaking. The problem with foxholes (if it is), if fixed, would change the odds slightly in the defender's favor. [ 11-13-2001: Message edited by: Wreck ]</p>

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr> Shelter from artillery is at least foxholes with overhead cover which are assumed not to be available for CMBO defenders, modeling only "hasty" defense. <hr></blockquote> You do not have to cover a foxhole to provide very good cover from artillery. In a foxhole the arty has to land almost on top of you in order to be able to "see" you with its splinters. It is the splinters that are the primary wounding agent from arty. Overhead cover in foxholes was used primarily to protect from airbursts: in trees, or from VT arty. It might also protect a hole from a direct hit, but only from relatively small arty -- light mortars. That was certainly not its main function.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr> CMBO never attempted to model any defense more than a hasty one. <hr></blockquote> I suppose this may be, but if so it was a bad design decision on BTS's part. The foxholes they should have modelled are the "standard" foxholes. 1-2 hours digging. A hole in the ground, no overhead cover, but providing sufficient cover for the defender to completely hide himself if he chooses. Why? Because this sort of foxhole is the most common WWII defensive position. Yes there were WWI style trenches in some places, and "shallow" foxholes, and foxholes with overhead covers. And bunkers, for that matter, which would not die from a single 37mm penetration. All of these things it would be nice to model, but in addition to the common, vanilla foxhole. I prefer to think that BTS was trying to model vanilla foxholes (and not 15 minute jobs), and just got the cover percentages wrong. Or that I have not tested them properly.

I have searched the forums for "foxhole" and "cover", and I am surprised to not find any other threads complaining about the lack of cover afforded troops in CMBO foxholes. By my reading of history, foxholes were the preferred cover for troops under fire, excepting perhaps stone buildings. Now a good part of that is probably due to their resistance to artillery (which I have not measured in CMBO). But infantry also fought with small arms from foxholes in the open all the time. In CMBO, a smart player will never fight from a foxhole in the open unless the map is essentially devoid of any other cover. Doesn't this strike anybody else as odd? It certainly strikes me that one of the reasons that CM attacks tend to win, even with just 3:2 odds, is that the defenders are lacking the flexibility that foxhole cover should give them to defend where they want.

Rex -- I am pretty sure that summer wheat will be thicker. I will have a look at July when I get a chance. It may be the case, though, that the exposure from being in the wheatfield itself does not change, but the effect of tracing LOS through areas of it does. This is also something that can be easily checked, so I will take a look. It may also be that way with trees. I have certainly noticed that scattered trees don't seem to provide much cover in the winter.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr> When rounds hit a plate at and angle (virtually all shots have some angle) the effect of the slope is determined by the TD ratio thickness (of armour) / diameter of the shell. Thus is you change TD it will resist differently, so 120mm @ 60 degrees (80% quality) will not resist the same as 96mm @ 60degrees 100%<hr></blockquote> Do you have an idea of how large an effect this is? I doubt that the net error introduced would be greater than the 10% currently there. Maybe 1%? If so, then it is still a good idea. Perhaps it would minimize the error caused by this "TD ratio" if the armor quality was set to 95%, then all of the plates adjusted to match.

Regarding the armor quality modelling of King Tigers. Everyone seems to agree that Rexford's research is the best extant on this. Accordingly the sides should be 100% quality, and only the front plate is 90%. In CM it is 90% all around. The question is, in CM what do you do with this? Use 100% and get the front wrong, or 90% and get the sides wrong? Here is a solution to the problem that will make everyone happy. Set the armor quality to 100%, then make the front plates be 9/10 as thick. Or, leave the quality at 90% and make the side plates be 89mm. Is there something I don't understand about the penetration computation that would make this not work? The only problem left would be grogs posting from time to time to tell you your numbers are wrong. But they would shut up with a very brief response telling them why/what has been done.

I just did some testing of exposure numbers, and posted the results over in the tips and tricks area. Having done that, I want to get some discussion going about these numbers. There are several aspects of CM exposure that I think could use tweaking. One is that moving units are no more exposed than stationary units. This seems wrong to me. Generally speaking a stationary man, lying on the ground facing the enemy, would present perhaps 1/3 as much area to the enemy as a man standing. Therefore he should be substantially less exposed. Secondly, I am quite surprised by the (lack of) cover offered by foxholes. Foxholes in open are 45% exposed. This is practically unusable as a defensive position, unless there is no cover anywhere. I think that foxholes should be at least the equivalent of a wall (30%), because in both cases you need only expose the head and upper shoulder area to fire. Also similar to a wall, pinned infantry in foxholes would be very difficult to affect with direct fire small arms. Also, foxholes in brush and wheat are no better than foxholes in open. I would think that in both of these (and especially brush), the combination of cover (the foxholes), plus concealment from the terrain, would show up in the exposure numbers. Finally, I think that "being really prone" (hiding, pinning, crawling) is undermodelled with some terrain -- or perhaps overmodelled behind walls. Behind a wall, infantry in one of those states is 0% exposed: invisible and untouchable w/ small arms. But consider stone buildings. Presumably a stone building wall is at least equal to a terrain wall. Yet, pinning/hiding/crawling infantry in stone buildings get no benefit from their status. [ 11-11-2001: Message edited by: Wreck ]</p>

I searched and did not find this. So I thought it would be useful to record what the exposure percentage associated with each type of terrain is. These numbers were taken in November, with clear dry weather. Note the effect of foxholes. If you grew up playing Squad Leader, this is not what you would expect. Also note the effect of movement: there is no effect. Cover percentage is the exact same when moving as when still, except for the case of crawling behind a wall, where exposure is 0%. [edited to add rough, which I forgot originally] [ 11-12-2001: Message edited by: Wreck ] [edited to add fords, thanks ciks] [ 11-12-2001: Message edited by: Wreck ]</p>

No.

Steve, this thread is not like others where you have tangled with Jason and others. In this one, he has set the bar almost laughably low: Quoting Jason: <blockquote>quote:</font><hr> No penetration of a KT from the side by a bazooka exists in WW II combat records. Specific examples exist of bazookas failing to penetrate them, under battlefield conditions and also in firing range tests. ... In CM it [the British 95mm HEAT] is one of the most effective tank killers in the game, able for instance to reliably kill Tiger Is from any aspect, and Panthers everywhere but the upper front hull. I know of not one combat AAR of 95mm HEAT accomplishing either feat on the battlefield. The 95mm support tanks were not thought of as super tank killers at all. <hr></blockquote> Steve, all you need to do to "win" this one for the CM HEAT formula is to find a single instance of a bazooka killing a KT. Or, you could find a single instance of a 95mm gun killing a Panther or Tiger from the front. Now KTs were pretty rare, so reports about bazookas and them might be hard to find. But I would think it very likely that the Brits would have figured out that their 95mm could kill the big cats handily, and they would have used the 95mm tanks accordingly, and left records of it.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr> Probability of taking casualties cannot depend linearly on firepower & cover. <hr></blockquote> Why not? In fact, in the testing I have done (with MGs at long range), probability of taking casualties does correlate pretty strongly with total firepower applied, as reduced for cover. <blockquote>quote:</font><hr> Also small arms are extremely effective at very short ranges. <hr></blockquote> This is true, and reflected in CM by the fact that at short ranges they have high firepower. <blockquote>quote:</font><hr> So that 72% difference in cover figures may result in 200-300% or even more difference in casualty rate. <hr></blockquote> Yes. I explained this above.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr> So the pistol does not necessarily mean that what is being modeled is an officer with a pistol. Check out any HQ unit with 1-5 casualties and what the survivors are fielding. <hr></blockquote> Pistols. So what? You completely failed to understand what I was saying. I was suggesting that the officer in question might "really" have a SMG or rifle. But he is only getting the firepower of a pistol, because he is too busy doing his job to spend much time firing. Telling me that the game shows him with a pistol proves nothing. I just told a way that a man with a virtual SMG might be modelled as a man with a pistol. OK, he has a "pistol". Is it an SMG that he is not firing much, or is it really a .45? Furthermore, note that my interpretation of this has nothing to do with casualties. Even at full strength, maybe the officer is really carrying an SMG, not a pistol. But because he is spending time talking to runners, giving orders, yelling into the radio for more arty, etc, he does not get full firepower. He gets the firepower of a pistol, and so he is shown as having a pistol.

Correction: looks like the cover figures are 11% and 19%. So, the guys in the wood should expect to take 72% higher casualties initially, not 50%.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr> Is being in a heavy building really that much of an advantage in a face-to-face fight? If so, it would seem to have serious implications for street fighting tactics. <hr></blockquote> The difference between heavy and light buildings is pretty big. Something like 18% cover vs 12%, i.e., 50% higher. That means you would be losing men at a 50% higher rate, all other things equal. And that effect would snowball, for two reasons. One, just in terms of firepower; you can see that your having lost three men and him, two, would be to his benefit. But second, taking casualties is always a morale hit. So your guys would be spending more time on the floor not firing than his. I am a bit surprised this happened, though, given the +2 morale leader you had. But maybe the Germans had a good morale leader as well. In any case, yes: the difference is huge for fighting in villages and cities. Wood buildings are fine if you have a 2:1 advantage, say. But for slugging matches, you want the absolute best cover possible.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr> But would it really be a pistol he would be carrying if he was the lone survivor? <hr></blockquote> Keep in mind this is a game. In the real thing, regardless of what weapon a leader was actually carrying about, if he was doing his job he did not have a lot of time to use it. That would seem especially true after losing all of his staff. So the pistol does not necessarily mean that what is being modeled is an officer with a pistol. Instead what is modeled is an officer doing his job, which leaves him precious little time to exert firepower.

James Morton: my email to you is bouncing (that would be to the James.Mail34 address at btinternet.com). Please get in contact with me... things are happening. Commanders are needed. Ben: what's up with TCP? You ready to give another shot at it? I have all the time in the world.

You cannot fire indirect with any on-board units other than mortars. Maybe what you were seeing was area fire.

Hi all, and 'specially the ever lovely and fresh section 3. On gaminess, the only one of the posted list that really annoys me is #1, the gamey use of fire. If you think it nongamey, sing out, so that I can start praying now that I get a scenario with flame vehicle, so I can abuse you. It is not that I don't like abusing flame, you see, or that I am bad at it... just that I think it sucks. My rule of thumb is: you are allowed to fire flamethrowers at units, or at squares which are known to be enemy occupied. Incidentally, I find that even in normal, balanced CM, using crews, zooks, etc. as recon is a bad idea. The men are each individually costly compared to riflemen; as an opponent I am happy to see crews where I can maul them. Now consider that we are talking about imbalanced CM -- the chance that a crew is going to turn the tide is significantly less. I prefer to play TCP. TCP:PBEM::crack:powder. I highly recommend it even to you newbies... who knows, you might find yourself with a new habit. I am in EST (GMT-5), just so ya know. [ 11-05-2001: Message edited by: Wreck ]</p>

On the German map as I currently have it, there are no setup zones for either side. How is setup going to work?

Sign me up. I wanna look at these imbalanced scenarios.

So far I have five responses from my emailed poll, which is also serving as the signup for this new campaign. (From Laakso, Yeoh, Morton, Landsbergh, and Campos; thank you!) If you played in the first campaign, but did not get my poll (sent two days ago), please let me know. Email me. If you sent me your response but are not listed above, please resend. If you have not responded, MOVE IT! We are ready to start just as soon as we have the teams squared away. [ 10-31-2001: Message edited by: Wreck ]</p>