Vanir Ausf B

I don't think the Panther was as expensive as a lot of people seem to think. Hard numbers are difficult to come by, by according to this website the Panther cost only slightly more than the Sherman.

It will come like a thief in the night.

I suppose this IS one of the very few problems in CM that cannot be solved by the proper application of high explosives.

Yes, I remember Steve stating that skylining was not simulated although a quick search came up empty.

Interesting stuff, sburke. I have posted the results already. The first test was run 40 times, the seconds one 20 times.

Well maybe I will try setting up your test, then. We'll see what happens.

There's some bad soldiers around...

*shrug* I'm just putting out the data. If the general consensus is that it really is better to have no cover at all in a firefight than be behind a low stone wall, then so be it. It saves me the trouble of setting up c3k's test suggestion. I disagree. The test shows that using a low stone wall as cover during a firefight is more likely to get your men hit than having no cover, provided the circumstances are otherwise similar to the test. To dismiss the results as meaningless is absurd. But, hey, if any of my future PBEM opponents are reading this please do feel free to disregard and put your guys behind walls.

Results for test with normal motivation. The test was otherwise identical to the fanatical test except I ran 20 iterations instead of 40 (I do not have endless amounts of time to do this). [U]BEHIND WALL[/U] KILLED: 532 WOUNDED: 748 TOTAL: 1280 AVERAGE: 64/TEST, 62.8% casualties [U]IN THE OPEN[/U] KILLED: 525 WOUNDED: 554 TOTAL: 1079 AVERAGE: 54/TEST, 52.9% casualties As I noted a few posts up, units in the open routed towards the guys shooting at them. Guys behind the wall ran away from the fight. Despite that the numbers are nearly identical to the test with fanatics.

They are not only shooting "straight across". That is not remotely true. I have been letting the TacAI choose it's own targets and there is quite a lot of cross firing at oblique angles. If anyone knows how to remove the rifle grenade I'd like to know. I did not see any option for it. I could try lowering their ammo supply level, but that would take away bullets as well. That diagram Broadsword posted didn't mention low walls at all.

I'll have the results of the normal motivation test up soon. However there is an odd TacAI behavior that is taking place that is affecting the results. Units in the open that panic and run are invariably running towards the enemy instead of away. This is obviously adding to their casualties. I don't know if this is because both sides are US. I did make setup zones on both side of the map. Or maybe it's because the wall is the only cover on the map?

Apples to oranges. I'm not testing guys behind a wall vs. guys prone in cover. It's guys behind a wall vs. guys with no cover. Completely missing the point isn't fair to me. The question isn't is whether shooting from behind a wall is be best possible tactic, but if it is a better alternative to no cover.

The soldiers at the wall are closer together depth wise because that's just the way the TacAI stacks them at walls. There is no way to spread them out except lengthwise along the wall, but then you run into the issue of flanking fire as one company will have a longer line than the other. The reason I made them all fanatic is because I wanted to test whether behind the wall or in the open is a more advantageous firing position, not hiding position. But I will test them with normal motivation and report back. I may try a run of tests with all the units on target light commands to the units directly across from them to try to factor out rifle grenades. To keep track of rifle grenade casualties separately would increase the time required to run the tests by orders of magnitude unless I dramatically decreased the number of units or number iterations.

By playing the game? Rifle grenades do not cause many casualties. The are weak and inaccurate.

I will try re-running it with lower motivation. Not true. Unit density is exactly the same for both sides. I would be curious to know what real world infantry train to do in firefight: lay down in the open or get behind cover. I'd be surprised if it wasn't the latter.

It's likely to be a few days before I can get to it, but I'll see what I can do.

That was a separate test dieseltaylor did against men hiding behind the wall rather than firing from it. Although I did not keep track, I am certain rifle grenades could not have accounted for more than a small fraction of the casualties in my test.

Sure it's a convenience. So is toilet paper. Steve has said it's on the To Do list. My guess is that it will be part of the UI overhaul planned for the Bulge game.

Is it more obvious than guys laying down on the ground? This test was run in a parking lot. The guys in the open have no cover of any kind. The point of the test was to see if it is better to shoot from behind a wall or with no cover. If I wanted to test how vulnerable they are when cowering on the ground behind the wall I would just have ordered them to hide. If it is true that lying down in the open is a safer firing position than behind a wall then that has major implications for tactics, especially in urban areas where you may be safer on the sidewalks than in buildings.

I didn't try this. Am I understanding you correctly that troops hiding behind the wall can only be hit with rifle grenades? If that is so it suggests bullets are not penetrating the wall, and therefore another explanation is needed.

I did not keep track of casualties from rifle grenades. I would have edited them out if I could, but both sides have them.

I don't remember the name of it exactly, but it's by Marco Bergman and is available at the Repository and Green As Jade's site. As for the test, it's not that they aren't getting as much cover as they should, but rather that the cover seems to do them more harm than good. I suspect the fact that the troops behind the wall are kneeling while the ones in the open are mostly prone may have something to do with it, but even then the results would only make sense if bullets were penetrating the wall with ease. The wall is made of stone and appears to be about a foot thick.

I've done some testing. The results seem to indicate that infantry do not benefit from taking cover behind low walls. In fact, they seem to be worse off than if they had no cover at all. The test is 2 companies of dismounted US armored infantry facing off against each other at about 140m. The terrain is pavement. One company is behind a low wall, the other is completely without cover. All troops are regular/fanatic and each side has 102 men including HQs. No orders were given to the troops. I just let them open fire and pick their own targets. For each iteration of the test I let them reenact Gettysburg for 3 minutes/turns and then surrendered to record the casualties. I ran the test 40 times. [u]CASUALTIES FOR COMPANY BEHIND WALL[/u] KILLED: 1032 WOUNDED: 1574 TOTAL: 2606 AVERAGE: 65.2/TEST, 64% casualties [u]CASUALTIES FOR COMPANY IN THE OPEN[/u] KILLED: 1097 WOUNDED: 1034 TOTAL: 2131 AVERAGE: 53.3/TEST, 52% casualties It's interesting that the company behind the wall suffers proportionately more wounded and fewer killed than the one in the open. But as a practical matter that means little in the game as a soldier is out of action either way. The bottom line is that infantry are better off with no cover at all than behind a low stone wall. Bug? I don't know. I do wonder if this could in some way be related to the issue some have mentioned regarding infantry in buildings getting chewed up. Here's the files if anyone wants to have a look at it: Scenario: http://www.2shared.com/fadmin/20577141/ba1fc2f6/Infantry_cover_wall_scenario.rar.html Save game: http://www.2shared.com/fadmin/20577143/5411a3da/Infantry_cover_wall_save_game.rar.html

That would be nice.