Vanir Ausf B

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeff Duquette: In the “World of Combat Mission” there is no distinction between squads aside from weapons make-up and numbers of men in a squad.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I agree there are very real differences in squad drill. I think the problem is the level of abstraction in the game. In CM squads are a single unit. When a squad moves, everyone in the squad moves at the same time. Squads fire in "volleys", and when they fire, everyone fires and then no one fires again until it's time for the next volley. I know Steve has said they plan to increase modeling of individual soldiers when they rewrite the engine, which would help greatly. Until then, I'm not sure much could be done. The one area where changes might be made now is in how half squads are used. When you split squads into teams you get an over watch element with the MG42/BAR and a maneuver element with rifles. This arrangement would seem to be more natural to the Germans because of the superiority of the MG42. The problem is that CM actively discourages people from doing this by giving half squads a moral penalty, as well as a global moral hit, when they split. The net effect of this is that infantry teams are only used as ambush-springers and for deception. When the bullets start flying everyone only fights with full squads since teams cannot take a punch, i.e. come under fire without suppressing and panicking almost right away. If I were looking for better modeling of squad drill in CM in the near future, I would begin by asking BTS to consider doing away with the split squad moral penalty. Then we would see a greater use of infantry teams as they were historically used, and perhaps a greater differentiation in the performance of German and Allied squads.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mord: Has anybody considered going after any of the Churchills/Cromwells in hires?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Tiger did a couple of nice hi-res churchills. At least I think they're hi-res. They look great in any case. I'm using the non-weathered one now. IIRC it's at Manx's site. Someone must have done a Cromwell at some point as the one I'm using is not stock, although I don't know if it's hi-res, and I don't remember where I got it. What I'd really like to see is a winter Churchill and winter Cromwell. AFAIK no one has done one of these.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Sirocco: I'll use the Gulf War to explain the importance of "national modifiers". How would CM handle it?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> CM would handle it by making the Iraqi's conscript (which they were) and the US a mix of regular and veteran. Then you properly model the different levels of C&C. If the US then is allowed the same overwhelming air and artillary assets they had, the result would likely be about the same as real life. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>An example would be the Germans use of fieldcraft in Normandy. All the reading I've done suggests the Allies were impressed by their use of cover and concealment, and I don't think that's reflected at all in CM. Spotting German units in the bocage is almost a trivial matter, even at long range.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Spotting anything is CM is pretty easy, but that's a function of the Borg spotting model and can't be avoided. You can make the Germans spot the Allies better than vice versa by making them higher expirienced in the game. That would be realistic for the ETO in summer '44 anyway.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Sirocco: You cannot tell me that a man who has lived all his life with those conditions isn't more used to them than someone who is coming into it for the first time.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Although rather irrelevant to CM, this is interesting. I was always under the impression that German difficulties in Russian winter (especially '41) were more due to a lack of proper clothing than any innate resistance to cold Russians may have had. Does anyone know if there have been any studies done to see if, all else being equal, people from colder climes freeze to death more slowly than their warm blooded peers? On the surface, it sounds absurd to me, but I've never really looked into it. [ 07-08-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]

It is unfortunate that mortar HTs cannot use spotters in CM. In good weather they are mostly worthless. In your situation they are completely worthless. I'm afraid you're screwed.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Sirocco: The most glaring example would be how Russian soldiers could stand up to the extreme Russian winter better than the Germans, as they were more used to the conditions. Didn't that have an effect at some point..? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> No doubt. But during a CM game? I don't think enough Germans would have froze to death during a 30 minute battle to model them dropping from frostbite in the middle of a firefight. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Jeff Duquette: What I am suggesting is that Armies are not generic blocks of units that are interchangeable between differing nations<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I agree completely. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Example: The Red Army employed 3 tank armored platoons. US Army employed 5 tank armored platoons. US tank platoon functions in two cohesive groups…a heavy section and light section. One section overwatches for the other during movement. Within the Soviet system two separate platoons are employed for overwatch. I would suggest that the US system is better as overwatch is conducted within the platoon…no coordination with another platoon is required. Subjective?…sure it is.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The question becomes to what extent you force the player to use those tactics and prohibit him from using others. What if someone wants to use 2 of his T-34's to overwatch the other advancing. How do you stop this? Did the Russians never deviate from offical SOP? How do you force the player to only use marching fire on the attack as the US in summer '44? Depuy states they did not discover squad overwatch suppression tactics until later. How do you stop the US player from even targeting defending German units with stationary US squads? Tero wants the TacAI to have German units automaticaly area fire at unseen enemy units. The net effect would be that German squads would run out of ammo much faster, blowing it firing at sound contacts, while doing little more damage. It would become SOP for every German player to begin his orders phase canceling all the area fires the TacAI had ordered during the turn. This would be a mess. People would hate it. Tero would hate it. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Be as subjective as you like, as personally I am less interested in what someone thinks about the implications to a wargame as I am in the real world mechanics of what is implied. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> This whole thread is pretty much about how RL stuff translates into CM terms [ 07-07-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tero: No counter arguments have been made. None that have come with actual, factual counterclaims anyway.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> What a load. Look, this has gone beyond pointless to absurd. People post stuff left and right countering your arguements and you pretend they don't exist. Then one person posts some opinions that mesh with yours and you lap it up as if God himself had just come down and appointed you his spokesperson. This reminds me of another arguement I had with some guy last year on another forum about a new graphics engine coming out. He was going off on how it couldn't be any good as it still supported Glide. I posted a quote from the lead programmer where he flat out stated "we are dropping Glide and going with DX and OpenGL only. Glide is dead." The guy's response was to say "I don't see anything in there about Glide support being dropped". He simply refused to admit he had been proven wrong even though the proof was right there for everyone to see. It reminded me of argueing with a small child who plugs his ears and goes "LALALALALALAL-I can't hear you!-LALALALALALA". So when I see you refusing to admit that Depuy thought the M1 had anything to do with US suppression problems, even though I provided 2 quotes where he clearly does, I begin to hear LALALALAL and know it's time to agree to disagree and move on. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Kallimakhos: Vanir & co, I object to your implications that Finns are nationalist or even racist if we think, based on historical comparison and evidence, and say aloud, that Finnish army did very well and and other armys could even learn something from us. When you make this kind of accusations, every Finn can be offended.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I can only speak for myself, but at no time did I ever accuse Tero of being racist, nationalist, sexist or any other ist. I did say his arguements were based upon stereotypes, which they are. I never said anything about Finland, the Finnish army or Finnish people in general. [ 07-07-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mark IV: What on earth would make you think that the M1 is a poor suppressor?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> On the off chance you were directing this question to me, the answer is that I never at any time said I thought the M1 was a poor suppressor. I only quoted Depuy's remarks on it. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I have here Patton's Letters of Instruction to the Third Army, dated April 1944 (War As I Knew It). In it he is already advocating "marching fire", of which he is known as the foremost advocate.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I have here a quote from Depuy who apparently was not a big advocate of marching fire. "So, marching fire obviously was designed to overcome that problem, but somewhere in the transmission between the lessons learned and our unit, marching fire became the tactic through which you attacked. In other words, we lined up two battalions with two companies up and they went across the line of departure, using marching fire. It might have worked if the enemy was not well dug in, not well camouflaged, and very weak; but, if the enemy was professional, as the Germans usually were, was well-hidden, and was in very good positions, marching fire as often as not, just wasn’t sufficient. We marched into their killing zones." [ 07-06-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tero: Well DUH ! What was their primary infantry fire arm at the time ?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Depuy doesn't say anything about any weapons that would have been good suppressors if they had only been used as such, there or anywhere else. However, the M-l rifle, coupled with the rifle marksmanship program, worked to discourage active firing in combat by the average soldier. The M-l rifle was a precision weapon but there were no precision targets What parts of these sentences do you not understand? <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Why is that ? I used to think that the Garand WAS an excellent suppressor, being rifle caliber, high MV, semiauto, multiple shot weapon. Silly me. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yes, silly you. I thought we were talking about Depuy's opinion of the M1, not yours.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Tero: What words have I put into Gen. Depuys mouth, exactly.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> One blatant example: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Really ? GEN DEPUY: We didn’t do that very well. You see, one of our training deficiencies was that almost all suppression was done by indirect fire weapons. Very little suppression was done by small arms. Occasionally, we would use our heavy machine guns. People thought first about mortars and artillery, then heavy machine guns, and finally, light machine guns. Really, they didn’t think much about using riflemen for suppression..... We didn’t do direct fire suppression very well in my outfit until the latter part of the war.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> You quote this to support your contention that Dupey thought the M1 Garand would be a good suppression weapon if they had tried to use it as such. This despite the fact that he makes no mention of the M1 anywhere in that quote. In fact another Depuy quote that you posted earlier (but seem to have somehow forgotten now) pretty much discredits your point: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>DEPUY: However, the M-l rifle, coupled with the rifle marksmanship program, worked to discourage active firing in combat by the average soldier.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> And again later: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>DEPUY: Really, they didn’t think much about using riflemen for suppression. They just thought of using riflemen for maneuvering and sharpshooting. The M-l rifle was a precision weapon but there were no precision targets<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I find these statements very hard to reconcile with your contention that Depuy thought the M1 was an "excellent suppressor" (your exact words). <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Do you Americans see the boogie man every time the effectiveness of your army gets questioned ?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yet another stereotype. [ 07-06-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]

I keep telling myself this is pointless, but I keep posting anyway. I can't explain it. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tero: To me he comes across as having been turned from that into thinking that the M1 would have been an excellent suppressor if it had been deployed in that manner.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> He never said anything of the sort, or even suggested it. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I suspect it is not. A semi-auto FP rating is better than the bolt action FP. Bullet for bullet. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Check the FP rating for the M1 and K98 sometime. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Yes. But how did the Germans react in a similar tactical situation ?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> You tell me. You're the one wanting to give them extra bonuses. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>"Hey, somebody is firing at us from that direction with a MG ! Sorry, can't see it. Can you see i..argh. **** this ****, lets call in some arty to flush that speck of woods. Yeah, Rock'nRoll !"<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The thing that bothers me so much about your nationality modifier crusade is that it's based upon stereotypes like the one above. The use of stereotypes, even ones with some basis in fact, in modeling human behavior is wrongheaded <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>A German squad (9 men) vs an American squad (12 men), both in covered terrain and advancing, distance 75 meters. The Germans open up first. What happens next ? Which team in your oppinion prevails and why ?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Result would hinge entirely upon what the 2 squads had eaten for breakfast. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>And a single shot from a K98k would drive the entire US platoon to ground and they would look for a sniper for minutes before they dare to move on. Is that now modelled in the game ?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Now you're just making things up. And another stereotype to boot. "US soldiers were so jittery a single shot would suppress them for minutes. German soldiers, however, would bravely push forward, unbothered by the small annoyance." <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I think this is worth a closer look at least, given the weight of evidence.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> All your weighty evidence amounts to words you've put into Depuy's mouth combined with stuff you've pulled out of thin air. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>That would mean that in essence using above average troop quality for the US infantry becomes gamey. How realistic is that ?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Are you suggesting there were no above average US troops in the ETO. How logical is that? EDIT: DOH! Steve posted stuff while I was typing. I need to learn to type faster... [ 07-06-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tero: I was referring to the remarks by (among others) Gen. Depuy about US troops being predisposed not to returning fire at enemy units unless they could clearly see a target and how that sometimes subjected the US units to become suppressed easier than the enemy units.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I think the US units not returning fire was in large part a function of the weapons they were using i.e. M1 Garand. As Depuy said, it was a point target weapon, not a suppressor. I suspect this is already factored into the FP rating of the weapon in CM. And in case you think the Germans were somehow immune to this phenomenon, note that Dupey's comments talk about German units suppressing US units with automatic weapons fire, not bolt action rifle fire The Germans used a lot of K98 rifles. In short, the superior German ability to suppress with infantry fire is already modeled by giving them a lot more automatic weapons than the Allies. And I doubt all those Germans with bolt action K98s were firing more than US guys with semi-auto M1s, so an across the board bonus to all German infantry (or across the board penalty to all US infantry) is not warranted. Correct modeling of weapons effect will take care of that. Using regular Germans vs. green Americans can compensate for any other discrepancy.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Triumvir: How exactly do you see the map before purchasing units? Enquiring minds want to know, damnit!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> If it is a game being setup with the map editor with the help of a 3rd party. Like in the "CM Celebrety" tournament.

Oh man, if I had a nickle for every one of these posts A weak spot on a Panther would likely be a MG port. I believe there is a flat 1% chance of hitting one. Also, note that all Panthers except the G late have a shot trap, whick significantly increases the chance of a weak point penetration. In that case it would be the shell richocheting off the turret down through the top of the hull, but the message you get is just "weak point penetration".

3 companies. 45 tanks total including command elements IIRC. [ 07-05-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Eric Alkema: I always assumed that it was not totally random, and that rarity influenced the result.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I'm pretty sure there is some rarity factored in. For example, Panthers show up much more frequently than Tigers, despite costing more. However, you do still tend to get one of this and one of that and two of those. The forces I pick for my own QBs are more historically correct than computer pick for this reason, though this will vary greatly from person to person. [ 07-05-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Panzerman: 1. What type and how many tanks were in a standard tank company?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> 14 was typical for German Heavy Panzer companies after May 20, 1943, at least on paper. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>2. Also how were heavy tanks used on the Eastern front? In mass formations or just one or two working with a regular Tank battalion?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Whole books have been written about this. Officialy, they were to be used en mass at critical or decisive moments only, and not used up in "unnecessary" actions. In practice, local commanders often ignored this doctorine and used them as fire brigades, a few here, a few there. For this reason Heavy companies were rarely at full strength. EDIT: Mace posted what I forgot to about their independant organization. [ 07-05-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: Does anyone have an opinion on attack/defend type QBs?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I do Attack/defend QBs are mostly what I play. They are great for honing your tactical skill with a variety of weapons platforms, and playing with different combinations of units and formations to see what works. Just pure tactical warfare, with a greater variety of methods than seen in MEs. The one big problem with them currently is that they are unbalanced. The defender is at a real disadvantage. There are multiple reasons for this, some of which have to do with the game in general (MG effectiveness and gamey rush tactics, being fixed in CM2). The problem particular to QBs is the shape of maps. QB maps are simply too shallow in depth to allow the defender to set up much of a layered defense. In large QBs, if you luck out with the terrain, you can sometimes get a compressed defense in depth, but the spacing is not good. Your MLR is usually on or just in front of the VLs, so if the MLR is penetrated there is no real fallback position, as falling back means conceeding the VLs. Hopefully CM2 will allow deeper QB maps, either by default or through greater player control over map size and shape. This would allow VLs to be staggered more front to back as well as side to side, making VL possession less of an all or nothing proposition. For MEs opposing forces should not be starting as close to one another as they currently do. Deeper maps or thinner setup zones are in order. [ 07-05-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by David Aitken: The fact is, quick battles aren't realistic at all. How often did two opposing forces meet which were perfectly equal, and fight in an environment totally unaffected by nearby friendly or enemy units, the 'winner' being the side which has secured some big flags in random locations on the terrain whilst inflicting the most damage and suffering the least damage in exactly 30 minutes?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Actually, except for the VL locations, doesn't this describe most scenarios as well? Most scenarios I've seen are designed to be fairly even fights, they all have set in stone time limits and they are played on maps with borders.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tero: I doubt the US Army infantry units tendency of not firing back at all because they see no target is not even properly modelled in CM at the moment.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Sure it is. No unit in CM will fire at a target it can't see unless you specificaly give it an area fire order.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stacheldraht: Dancing and lifting weights at the same time--impressive!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Er, hehe. You don't want to see me dance. I've got white man's disease bad.

I lift weights for 30 minuets every day. I feel pretty chipper most of the time.

First of all, thanks for posting that stuff. It has been helpfull, although some of the "second batch" seems to deal with the PTO. But, thankfully, I have found something wrong with something you said <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tero: I think that when you compare the cost to the potential manpower losses incurred to make it work properly I think the trade off in the lower cost is fair. You gain some more fire power but if you are not able to utilize it properly you lose the squad in long range duel with a unit that is better at it than the SMG squad.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I'm not sure what you mean by "the cost to the potential manpower losses incurred to make it work properly". Makes no sense to me, but if you are refering to the smaller size of VG SMG squads, it is irrelevant. British rifle and para squads are the same size, German Gerbil units are 10 man, ect. Also as I stated before, the risk of losing a SMG squad in a "long range duel" sounds like something someone who has not spent much time playing the game against other people would say. It just doesn't happen. They are underpriced, period.

After reading tero's Dupey post, I think it is entirely possible that the US was simply mistaken about the effectiveness of SMGs and the M1 rifle. SMGs apparently did not fit into their philosophy of what proper infantry tactics were. The Germans had a rather different view. I don't see what other conclusion can be drawn. None of this alters the fact that SMGs are woefully under priced in CM.

About rarity in CM2: I don't know if BTS is considering numbers of tanks fielded vs. number of tanks operational, but I do know that unit rarity will only be relative to other unit types on the same side. For example, rarity of Panther will be compared only to numbers of other German tanks, and KV-1 only with Russian. So, even though there may have been several times more T-34s than Pz Mk IV in late 1943, they will likely have about the same rarity factor, as they were both the most common tank for their respective armies. Yes, this means a German player will be able to buy just as many tanks as the Russian as long as he sticks to the more common types, just like in CM1. [ 07-04-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]