SteveP

If there were tank-sized openings in the hedgerows in Normandy, there would have been no problem for the American army. In order for the Americans to make any kind of progress thru the bocage, they had to solve two problems: mobility for the tanks (that is, getting tanks thru each hedgerow and on to the next hedgerow -- think of the rhino and other adaptations) and coordination between tanks and infantry at the platoon level. I am a bit surprised that people even think there should be larger openings in the hedgerows, but I have discovered that this is not uncommon on a lot of CMBN maps, so maybe that is why folks are surprised not to see them on this map.

I'll let you research the farming practices of Normandy. In the meantime, the simple answer to your question is that there are only two possible openings in the bocage in CMBN: soldier size and tank size. I would hope that people understand that there could not have been very many tank size openings in the bocage in 1944 (regardless of what you may see in other scenario/campaign/QB maps ).

General Collins told General Bradley that it was as bad as anything he had encountered on Guadalcanal. General James Gavin of the 82d said, “… none of us had really appreciated how difficult they would turn out to be." Others compared it to fighting in “Indian country.” The standard view was that the bocage was unlike anything the American army had ever faced. None of their tactical doctrines seemed to work here. “Bocage aux Folles” now at the Repository is my attempt to design a scenario, using realistic force complements and ratios, played against the AI, that might present this kind of challenge to the experienced CM player (including those who think the AI could never present a serious challenge). Some specifics: 1. It is fictional. It’s just another day in the life of an infantry company during much of June 1944. 2. It is company-sized. Companies fought their way through the bocage in virtual isolation from one another. There might be a company on one side or the other, but you couldn’t do much to help each other. You had to make your own way from hedgerow to hedgerow. 3. It is infantry only. The army had not yet figured out a way to effectively employ tanks in this terrain. 4. The various maps and briefing text don’t do much more than fill space, but the Designer’s Notes are my attempt to explain what is going on in the scenario design. It does not contain any spoilers. 5. It is designed only for play as the Americans vs. the AI. I do not believe it possible to script an AI plan for the American side in a scenario like this. The AI has multiple plans. I believe this scenario could be played many times and you would never be certain exactly where the Germans were deployed and when you would run into them. OTOH, I have tried to avoid doing anything to help the AI that might be considered “gamey.” 6. The only major compromise on realism is that you have unhampered access to your company and battalion mortars. In reality the Americans found that they could not effectively or safely employ any of their artillery assets in close support in this terrain. On the other hand, time to complete the mission is limited. You don’t get all day. So, is it hard to beat this scenario? Well … Your objective is only a half km of farmland away from your start line. You have a more than 3-1 force advantage. You have your mortars. The Germans have no bunkers, trenches, foxholes or wire obstacles. The AI is running the defense. How hard could it be?

You can look at the scenario yourself. It's included with the game. I believe that in CMBN, Hide means go flat and don't do anything that will give away your position, including looking up much. So one can easily imagine that in a lot of terrain, spotting anything from that position would be difficult. However, I have not done a range of tests using different concealment terrains in CMBN, because I don't believe in the Hide/Covered Arc theory (until of course BFC tells me I should ).

For the record, I have no complaint about the way things seem to be working in CMBN -- except that I have some lingering doubts about the effectiveness of concealment in general. I just didn't like to see people arguing about something that was so easy to test.

This may be going on longer than necessary, but ... there are two possibilities for Elite and Iron: 1. They each provide an incremental layer of realism that is otherwise not true with Warrior. That is, Elite puts you, as commander in a situation that is more realistic, and Iron even more so. So that Iron is the closest thing to being a WWII commander. Or ... 2. They each provide an incremental layer of handicap. That is, Elite handicaps you more than would be true for a real life commander, and Iron even more so, especially if you play along with the implied, self-imposed rules. The purpose of the handicaps is to make it more difficult to beat the AI. Otherwise, they aren't doing anything useful. I think the correct answer is #2. That was my only point. But I wanted to acknowledge the possibility that Elite was providing some enhancement to realism which I didn't know about. I am pretty sure that Iron is not doing that.

You realize, I assume, that friendly units aren't looking for icons. Friendly units being in or out of C2 occurs at all levels the same way. It's just a matter of what you can easily see as the player which changes. And by making this more difficult, you make it more challenging to play against the AI. It's a contrivance.

Well, I'm sorry it wasn't clear that I was talking about playing against the AI -- that is, the intent is to make it more challenging to defeat the AI. After all, the overwhelming majority of people who play games like CM play against the AI. And this is just my theory. The original Iron Man rules (by Franko) were self-imposed, and included the proviso that you can only shift from unit to unit using the +/- keys (IIRC). So, I'm thinking that the Iron level is just a way to help implement that concept, with Elite being a less rigorous implementation. Otherwise I don't see any reason to use Elite/Iron, but possibly I am missing/forgetting something in Elite that makes it more realistic than Warrior.

Well, I've been a beta tester for another sim game by another small company, so I have no problem cutting them lots of slack. It's also worth pointing out that when you script an AI Plan, there is no possibility of giving an AI group a simultaneous Ambush (i.e., covered arc) and Hide order. Admittedly, the AI Plan function is limited, but that might provide some additional evidence that the covered arc and hide commands are not intended to work together as they did in CM1. Otherwise, that is something which needs to be fixed.

This is one of those threads that mystify me, so I ran a quick test using the Pleasantly Shaded Woodland scenario. I gave the Germans in the first Hedgerow covered arcs and hide orders, playing Warrior level. None of the Germans could spot any of the attackers until the latter were right on top of them -- so, of course, they had no way of knowing if the attackers were within the covered arc. I tried the same thing with an HQ unhidden, as spotter, to see if he would communicate to his units to unhide when he saw the attackers had come close. He did not. I don't have a definitive explanation as to why others see the hide/covered arc working like it did in CM1. However, I think if the ambushers are in poor concealment, their spotting ability may be better and they will see attackers moving into the covered arc. Of course, the attackers may see them as well. It's also possible that tanks are easier to spot while hidden, and therefore AT units are more likely to unhide at the right time.

My theory is that BFC assumes players will impose certain rules on themselves when playing Elite or Iron, in order to make playing against the AI more challenging -- but not to increase FOW or realism. For example, you could choose to never click on an enemy icon when playing Elite, or choose to give orders to each of your units only by clicking +/- to go from one unit to the next. Unless you impose rules like that, Elite/Iron don't seem to be very good choices, since they otherwise just slow you down but don't otherwise increase FOW or realism. My best guess.

I finally got around to running real tests on a map I created. The focus of these tests was entirely about concealment. I had both sides set with short cover arcs, so there was no shooting. And I ran the tests for 3 minutes each time, to see how many enemy units popped into view before any shots were fired. The good news is that there is a solution for concealment that is within acceptable limits for a realistic bocage battle. I had been running tests using an existing scenario (by an excellent mapmaker). It turns out that the distances, though quite realistic for bocage country, were too short for CMBN. Concealment effectiveness varies somewhat depending on the experience level of the spotter(s) and perhaps also of the defenders, plus number of spotters, number of binocs, etc. So getting precise numbers for all the variables is impractical. However, what I have found is that concealment starts to become realistic at a distance of 160m and there is no practical need for a distance greater than 200m. We can certainly make realistic looking bocage maps within those parameters. The big disappointment is snipers. They reveal their positions as soon as they start shooting at anything. I am sure this is a general problem, not just bocage, and seems to be about the same as it was in CM1. Back then, BFC said these guys weren't really snipers, just sharpshooters who would otherwise be part of rifle squads. So I have to assume that is what they would say here. Unfortunately, snipers were a valuable part of a bocage defense, as they could pick off small scouting teams before they could gather any useful info -- plus demoralize and pin green squads. OTOH, given the distances we are talking about here, snipers may be able to survive most the fire that gets sent their way, which would force the US to use mortars on them. It's food for thought at this point, nothing more. I will probably be doing some similar testing on cover shortly.

There is a flaw (IMHO) in the AI Plan for the Axis, regarding groups and setup zones. The panther should probably be in its own group and given its own setup orders.

The mortar has such limited ammo, I think it's best used on the hardest defensive positions. Fire it direct, no indirect. Don't use it to suppress. Use it to kill something. Anything.

Something I have not come across is anything that describes exactly what the Germans did, except as the US surmised from several days of fighting in the bocage for the first time. Certainly, the US believed that they were always facing at least one, if not two, HMGs in each field. It's possible that the Germans figured out the likely direction of attack, and moved reserve units including HMG teams into those areas. The US view was that the LMGs were there primarily to provide grazing fire to keep the US troops in the middle of the bocage field, while the HMGs kept them pinned down. The mortars did the real damage. It doesn't appear that the Germans used artillery against rear or assembly areas as effectively as the Allies. For one thing, the US had spotter planes that could adjust fire, while the Germans were fairly blind. But every bocage field was registered (as one would expect in any planned defense). AP mines definitely. All AT weapons and devices were focused on the road network, including the narrow roads running through the bocage country itself, until the US figured out how to get tanks working effectively in the bocage itself. What I was hoping to do is create a small (company or two company) map that could be used for 3 different scenarios: one set in mid-June, the 2nd in late June, the 3rd in mid-July, providing an opportunity to explore how the US adapted to the bocage, and what the Germans did to counter those adaptations. But making that work in a realistic way means that the bocage has to be a very nasty (and bloody) problem for the US infantry in that first scenario. Until I figure out how to do that, the whole scheme looks like a field training exercise (with live ammo ).

Yes. AFAICT, there is no "additive" factor you can use. I assume the game engine calculates based on whatever is the strongest feature in the Action Spot. It would be possible to put a visual obstruction on the US side of the bocage field (low bocage, say). That would force the US player to move forces into a more vulnerable position in order to spot the defenders. I was trying to avoid doing anything that looked terribly contrived (I could justify the trenches, because the Germans did in fact cut slit trenches into the bocage). Still, I can't say that I've tried every option by any means, and even though I am doubtful, I may try some other ideas before giving up completely.

Not really. The defensive units are giving away their positions without even firing a shot -- including snipers, which is really wrong. So an Ambush order doesn't do much. Hide would help, but then you have to give a script order for the AI to unhide at some point (which has to be at a certain time in the game) or else they just stay there until the US infantry gets into grenade range. I've thought about trying that out (with say a 3 minute Hide), and just haven't yet. Where I think that might work really well is in a situation where the US player doesn't know in advance what bocage line on the map is going to be defended. In that case, he might well be caught in the open when the AI unHides (if you get the timing right in the script). A bit of a kludge, but a combination of techniques like that might produce something that looks like a real bocage assault battle. Also, one of the common problems with the bocage scenarios I've seen is too few, or no, TRPs. IRL, the bocage fields were full of registered targets. An overwhelming % of US infantry casualties in Normandy were from mortars, most of them in these fields. I think the AI can figure out how and when to do this OK, if the US infantry can be enticed into the fields before their own mortars (and MG fire) do major damage to the defenders. What is really unrealistic are the firefights that go on across the field, from one bocage to the other. IRL that couldn't have happened and/or would have been a waste of ammo. I agree that if units in the bocage got anything like the kind of concealment they did IRL, the resulting battles probably would look much like they did IRL.

“The military features of the Bocage are obvious. The hedgerows divide the country into tiny compartments. The hedgerows in each field provide excellent cover and concealment to the defender and present a formidable obstacle to the attacker. Unable to use normal techniques of fire and maneuver, American commanders were also powerless to influence the battle with increased firepower. Heavy vegetation and the close proximity of the German defenders made it impossible to bring forward and set up heavy machine guns. Company commanders used their organic 60-mm mortars in an attempt to knock out German machine-gun positions. However, the hedgerows and the close combat conditions made the observation and adjustment of mortar and artillery fire almost impossible. American and German units often fought one another at ranges of less than 300 yards. Short distances made calling for artillery fire risky, since unadjusted rounds could easily land on friendly troops. Many engagements were fought at such close range that even if friendly rounds landed on German positions, the effects of shrapnel and concussion would endanger American lives. Unable to observe the enemy and to call fire on him from a safe distance, infantrymen were deprived of field artillery and mortar support. American commanders quickly discovered that four or five German defensive positions could pin down an entire infantry battalion and hold up an attack for long periods. General Collins of VII Corps was equally surprised by the nature of the hedgerow terrain and told General Bradley on 9 June that the Bocage was as bad as anything he had encountered on Guadalcanal.” What I was trying to do is create a bocage defense for the AI that would impose this sort of problem for the player, as described in these quotes – for example, the ability to hold a single bocage field with a couple of HMGs, a couple of LMGs and a sniper or two, with perhaps a rifle squad. In CMBN, a vanilla US rifle company can destroy this defense in 30 minutes or less. I have not been able to figure out a way around that. Certainly not to create something comparable to Guadalcanal. Of course, if that problem could be solved, then it would be possible to build a somewhat larger scenario which demonstrated the strength of interlocking defenses across 2-3 lines of bocage fields.

Nope, didn't work after all. I tried to tailor a bocage scenario to use this idea and to model the RL effectiveness of a bocage defense. I could not do it. It may not be possible. Concealment has to be much stronger, and mortar accuracy weaker. The trenches don't really help. I think this is because they aren't very good for concealment or cover themselves, and bocage plus trenches isn't additive. Even snipers give themselves away, without firing a shot, which is pretty unbelievable. Oh, well ...

I think the bocage terrain is the perfect situation for CM, at least with respect to infantry (or infantry supported by small numbers of tanks). CM is basically a simulation of company level combat. In the bocage, companies were forced to operate mostly isolated from each other. In an operational sense, the only requirement was to keep companies from getting too far ahead or behind each other. This really fits well with the scale of CM better than almost anything else.

It may also be worth pointing out that during the time that the enemy unit is only a contact, you are often getting less info than you'd probably have IRL. For example, distinguishing if the sound you heard was an MG or rifle fire was probably fairly easy. Maybe BFC would argue that this helps to balance things out to some extent. I also believe that concealment is not as good as it probably was IRL, especially in any type of prepared position. If enemy units stayed as contacts only for a longer period of time, this might help.

That's a good example, though not the one in the OP. I have to agree that it is a mystery why this info can't be fuzzed up a bit. Some specific info shouldn't be known until the end of the game. And I can see where it might be difficult to program some gradual revealing of info over the course of the battle, but it would be good to know if the engine simply won't allow anything different from what we have now.

Going back specifically to the OP: What of importance do you specifically know that makes this unrealistic? You would probably IRL be able to distinguish a rifle unit from a specialist team (e.g., an MG or a Shrek). You would probably be able to distinguish a large rifle unit from a small one. So your spotter decides the unit is probably about half a rifle squad. I agree it's a bit annoying to know what the unit is called, but I haven't found that info to be actionable in any way. Not trying to be provocative. Just curious.

Not sure if this addresses your point, but I believe the study was referring to anything larger than a BAR. As a general rule, until the US figured out how to get tanks into/thru the bocage, they had no way of providing effective direct overwatch/suppression fire from their side of the bocage field. Instead they had to push all their infantry units, including MGs, into the field and fight from there. In CMBN we have lots of options for direct fire overwatch, including non-rhino tanks, and more effective indirect fire as well.

FWIW, an authoritative study of the bocage fighting classified the US HMGs as one of the direct fire weapons that could not be effectively used when attempting to fire thru the bocage (largely because the Germans would see the US attempting to open up enough of the bocage to permit deploying and firing, and react accordingly). However, I don't think CMBN attempts to restrict any large caliber direct fire weapons in that way. IMHO, this is one of the reasons why fighting in the bocage is easier in the game than it was IRL.