Bruce Robert

Brief anecdotal point on rockets: My uncle was on a 105 mobile artillery unit. He said that when rockets came in they could quickly tell whether they needed to move quickly, or were safe where they were. He seemed to indicate that rocket attacks did not cause the concern other type of weapons did. Of course, he was speaking in relative terms, as any explosion going off near you was cause for grave concern. But rockets were, from his experience, relatively inaccurate. Second point: possibly some useful information here. If this has already been mentioned/discussed, my apologizes. http://nigelef.tripod.com/wt_of_fire.htm This site discusses the British artillery study that was done during WWII. Based upon Nigel Evans, artillery was not as effective/deadly as it appears to be in CMBN. I say seems, not is, as I do not have the background training to make a qualified assessment. Bruce G.

It was Mad Minute Games that put out Bull Run and then 2nd Mannassas. The translucent trees was an option that worked/works very well. Still love this game. BruceG

I second, or I suppose third, Navigator37's position. His position states it about as clearly as I might state for myself. If this game is about so much detail and 1=1 simulation, why can I not easily tell things that I could if I was walking about in the French countryside? Bruce G

This might be a case where real world angles - armor, shell trajectory, vehicle angle do to the ground it is on - will cause a bounce. There are archival reports of large caliber weapons that should easily, according to a more "laboratory" based assesment, penetrate light armor, but didn't because of the actual angle that the shell hit (of course other reasons could have caused the ricochet as well). Conversely, smaller weapons penetrating armor that it should not have been able to. Battlefield angles can vary greatly and alter a more sanitized assessment. Having said this, it would be interesting to know whether BF has coded something like this into the game. If so, thanks for the added "realism." The idea that a certain tank is immune from a certain weapon, or that a certain weapon is a certain kill, is not supported by the battlefield reports. So it should be an occasional (rare) occurence. Bruce

I second, or third, the motion. For me, the sounds are as important as are the visuals. Having distinct sound characteristics would be a lovely addition. Bruce G

Clark, I agree with you about the "phantom" dead vehicles. Regardless of other threads "explaining" the decision, it is a bad one. If this game is about accurate simulation, then a solid object on the field needs to be modeled as a solid object. Bruce

"Gamey" might be in the mind of the person using the tactic. If you know you are throwing away the unit in order to expose the enemy, that - in my humble opinion - is gamey. But to put a unit in harm's way, in order to carry out your mission, is not. The unit in question would have some reasonable chance to carry out its orders without committing suicide in the process. While being at great risk is the nature of combat, even the Japanese mass infantry charges had - in their commander's minds - a chance of success and therefore worth the risk, without destroying the entire unit. To say that anything the game allows "goes," is not in concert with the repeated statements on the game's accurate simulation qualities. If one is looking for that, then why look for loopholes? We used to call them "rules lawyers" who tried to win by niggling the rules to death. Usually, we simply stopped asking those types to join in the micro-armor games we hosted. Bruce

I like this idea very much. I think the problem is in the distinction between rt an wego. Both interesting, and both quite different. Wego needs Vinnart's ideas. Perhaps BT has more permanently moved into the rt mode, and has wego as an afterthought? I think both are fun to play, but rt seems more thought out. The "problem with pausing in rt is that you are now micromanaging in a way that is not realistic. Commanders would not have had that kind of control. It seems more gamey rather than adding more realism. One reason why I still like wego. But, I do do enjoy both styles. Bruce Bruce

Sorry dieseltaylor, I read an archival report in the Cantigny Museum in Wheaton, Il. many years ago during my micro-armor table top days. I am sure those reports are still housed there, but I don't have any references or specific titles. Bruce

Interesting thread. It does seem that buttoned tanks spot things a bit better than i would suspect. As to small arms fire, one US battle report noted the number of US tanks destroyed, and by what means, and listed one as destroyed by "small- arms fire." I don't know what they specifically meant by "small-arms fire," but I don't think the percentage to damage/destroy/drive away enemy armor is worth the risk in most cases, other than unbuttoned tanks buttoning up. Bruce

Thanks Steve, for responding to my post. It is a difficult issue, WWII arty effects. I just read an interesting essay based upon British WWII arty effects, and it shows how little can really be claimed scientifically. And clearly, Arty was effective, and the front lines, as you suggest, would probably be where it was most effective. I suppose one reason behind my thought was that it is a shame to set up a battle and have it effectively ended by some highly effective attack, even if that effectiveness is legitimate; I would say a question of realism versus playability. However, I am not saying that this is the case with CMBN with regard to arty, as much as a concern on my part. I have played in micro-armor battles where air attacks effectively ended the game. Thanks, Bruce

Thanks Blackcat. Any chance some of these will be included in future modules, as the first three were incorporated into the tactics of the time. I also have seen footage of large tanks plowing through what looked like a full-fledged hedgerow, but I can't be sure what type of hedgerow it was.. Bruce

1. Set up and fire mortars from within a building? 2. Place vehicles in buildings? 3. Place towed weapons in buildings? 4. Can tanks plow through the smaller hedges, and if so, how? thanks, Bruce

I would suggest that regardless of prepared positions/cover, the arty is a bit too deadly. I know that stats. are only valid on the long haul, as any single event might be on either end of the bell curve, and I haven't accumulated a large number of experiences with the game. However, there are too few rounds landing - relative to accounts I have read - versus the number of casualties caused, In general. it might be a question of accuracy rather than the damage effect of the round itself, as the few rounds sent my way seem to be dead on - pun intended - more often than not. "Or perhaps we just disagree with where the line should be drawn?" Steve. That may be what is going on here, a question of how much or little to best represent the actual accounts, and of course abstraction versus realism. But I still would like to see arty being more of a disruptive factor on the short term, only becoming deadlier with more long term/intense fire missions, or when you have direct/point fire on a specific target. Thanks for listening, Bruce

I found this info that might be of some use in this discussion. Although I haven't had time to check sources or find confirmation from other sources. Begin Quote: Effectiveness of fire Evans (2001-5) lists four aims of artillery fire (Neutralising, Morale, Lethal, Material). All four happen at the same time, but the effects earlier in the list are much easier to achieve than those later in the list. For example, a 25 pounder needs to land 8 - 32 shells per hour for neutralisation (for about 10% casualties; Global Security Organisation, n.d.), but 600 shells in a 100 x 100 yard sector are required to militarily 'destroy' the target (meaning 30% casualties). Neutralising: To prevent enemy movement and observation, and in cases of greater effect to prevent the effective use of enemy weapons. The effect only lasted during the bombardment, which meant in attack so the friendly infantry had to 'lean' on the bombardment to ensure they reached the enemy positions before the enemy realised the bombardment had stopped and reached their guns. Morale: To produce, in addition to neutralisation, a lack of will to resist continuing for some time after the end of the bombardment. Lethal: To kill or wound enemy personnel. Military 'destruction' was generally considered to be 30% casualties. Material: To destroy or damage enemy equipment Terrain significantly reduces the effect of fire (Evans, 2001-5). 'Natural' or 'average’ ground offers about 5 times as much protection to a prone soldier as an 'unnatural' level surface like a football field. Fortifications, being man made protective terrain, not surprisingly also significantly affects the lethality of fire. Evans (2001-5) lists some interesting estimates on how vulnerability changes with the posture of the target. The following table gives the relative risk of becoming a casualty to ground-burst shells on ‘average’ ground: Posture Risk Standing 1 Lying 1/3 Firing from open fire trenches 1/15 - 1/50 Crouching in open fire trenches 1/25 - 1/100 In the Far East the allies found that a Japanese fortifications were resistant to anything except a direct hit from a bomb or large naval gun (Ellis, 1980). In one incident in 1944, where 684 rounds of 3.7-inch howitzer shells and 670 rounds of 25-pdr shells landed in an area 250 yards square, the Japanese suffered only two confirmed dead and minor damage on a few communication bunkers; there was no material damage on the main combat bunkers. The allies found that individual guns fired at point blank range were much more effective - the trick was getting the guns in place. End Quote Source: www.balagan.org.uk/war/ww2/snippet/artillery.htm Steven Thomas