RockinHarry

Same for pillboxes. Every crew member as well as weapons and special equipment is lost forever, once you have casualties inside.:mad:

Off course they aren´t real life and I can´t tell of the reason I got stabbed (bayonet), instead of shot, since I did not survive the action. Maybe the oppo player expended ammo, lacked time to reload, wanted to keep stealthieness, whatever. Btw, it was latest experience of playing RO2 HOS :cool:, ...so no idea about "style points". Some of the better FPS with CC implementation provide a good testing ground for when to better have bayonet fixed and when not. If I expect an enemy just the next corner (bocage, wall, room, trench...) around I prefer to have bayonet fixed already. In very confined spaces an entrenching tool might be even more handy.

Who knows about ESRB rating matters? Would it hurt sales if CMBN adds appropiate hand to hand combat animations and modelling? CMX1 was rather "soft" in this regard, so there weren´t likely any problems. I know most FPS games and played most of them and if few do not have hand to hand combat modelled, a modder community would have added it later on (ARMA2, i44 mod). Some of the FPS games taught me, if you´re heavily focused on a certain action (observing, shooting, reloading, cowering, ...close combat), you could quickly die by getting stabbed from an enemy approaching you unseen, around the corner and such.

Think BA sequence is programmed in a way, that prior to BA application, the aidee has to micro path find into an appropiate position first, getting him more often then not into a coverless situation this way. A less strictly applied sequence with an aidee in prone position would solve most issues IMO. Another issue is that the aidee could oftenly be interrupted (by spotting an enemy? ...suppression effects? ...?), requiring him to completely start anew several times at worst, thus putting him even longer in dangers. A prone aidee also would likely feel less threatened, so less interruptions would occur. I´d assume the aidee would stay focused on his BA actions, while his team/squad mates cover him, unless he´s lone at the place with the wounded. Thus spotting or really necessary defense measures would come second.

Unfortunately the english Wiki lacks some further descriptions, the german version has. Try this (until I find a proper translation): http://translate.google.de/translate?sl=de&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=de&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fde.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FNahkampfspange

Could be. Beside (german) LMG gunner, I can´t remember at the moment. Maybe they do, if they´re already at the stance (prone, kneeling), but they should go for the better generally, if this allows taking full cover. So far they appear to reload (clip, mag, belt, not single bolt action) from the stance they used last for engaging the enemy, thus keeping LOS/LOF to the enemy generally. It´s doctrinally wrong, not to perform certain actions in full cover, but maybe the game attempts to keep awareness, so the single soldiers do not need to respot the enemy. German doctrine: You either observe, move, shoot or dig in. Anything else is "scheibe liegen" (showing target). If not doing any these actions, you go to full cover.

So that basically applies to our CMBN buddy aidees too (which are no medics in the sense). See nothing here that couldn´t really be applied in prone stance.

Makes sense. Would be interesting to know about WW2 procedures for medics, but I´d assume they weren´t that much different than current ones basically.

Before I dig my reference materials for evidences, I like to note that CC was probably more encouraged in german army than it was in US. Whether it could be or was applied is another question. One "encouragement technique" was: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Close_Combat_Clasp The Gold Close Combat Clasp was often regarded in higher esteem than the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross by the German infantry. Of the roughly 18 – 20 Million soldiers of the German Wehrmacht and Waffen-SS 36,400 received the Bronze Class, 9,500 the Silver Class and 631 the Gold Class. Well...the recipients of the CCC were "few", but does it tell anything about frequency of CC situations? Edit: This one is interesting as well: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infantry_Assault_Badge

I consider this realistic for the majority of infantry engagements and it´s also one of the best features in the game actually, if you think about it. Yet there´s the need to fine tune code for behavior of snipers (be they true marksman or not) as well as other soldiers who shouldn´t shoot at every given opportunity (officers, ammo bearers, heavy weapon assistants and such, ect.).

It´s surely anything but lousy, but if game development decisions are made upon broad "assumptions" about certain combat aspects to be rare (or common) in WW2 or not, then there´s at least some need for more in depth research and gathering credible info. The truth will surely settle somewhere between "rare" and "common". It´s just about that. Second comes if it´s worth time and efforts to include something like that in a "game" and there´s yet other reasons not to include as well. A gamey presentation of violence yields certain problems (ESRB rating) and hand to hand combat, as well as show of bloodn gore would likely be the most problematic ones. At least that would be more of a credible explanation not to include certain parts of gamey violence, instead of declaring it "uncommon" or "rare".

Interesting! Is that with regard to bridges placed diagonally? I haven´t experimented with bridges yet, but most problems obviously occur when the center point of an action spot lies on restrictive terrain features.

Yup, Steve already told elsewhere that units keep firing at enemy units for a couple more seconds, for the uncertainty that a unit is not quite finished off yet and a (tac AI driven) hold fire command needs a bit of time to get in effect for all single soldiers within a unit. The mentioned sniper unit might experience it this way: Hans: "Strike! ...I just finished him off!" Spotter: "Give another one. I think I´ve seen some movement and this guy over there might play dead!" Hans: "Ok. One more, but then we need to switch position, before the enemy spots us" Spotter: "Just to go safe. Could be an enemy officer" Hans: "Ok. Just hit again, ...I think...but can´t tell for sure. The guy doesn´t move anymore and he´s lying in high grass" ...

Wasn´t the majority of WW1 static western front combat sort of "trench raiding"? Imagine what soldiers had available when storming opposing trenches. Those who survived defenders MG fire, defensive barrages, overcame wire ect., had nothing but bolt action rifles, sidearms and hand grenades. I could well imagine what happened in the trenches, without digging my reference materials. Reports? One needs mostly to dig "low level" reports (company, platoon, single soldier accounts ect.) as the high level ones wouldn´t give much of "micro detail" on HOW units accomplished their missions. Even if digging high level reports on WW2 eastern front combat, one would come to the conclusion, that close-, hand to hand combat was a rare occurance, not to speak of WW2 western front. Amongst horrors of war, hand to hand combat surely was one of the most horrible ones and I could imagine various reasons for that it wasn´t reported about much, not considering that it´s more of unwanted micro detail in AARs on any level. Some here say, close-, hand to hand combat, was a rare occurance. I counter with, it was daily bread and butter for most frontline units.

Didn´t really mean it that serious with single "heroic" actions to be taken as general close combat methods of the majority of infantry fighting forces. Surely depends upon terrain to be fought over, which is numerous, forest and urban fighting just to name a few. Most combat reports do not go much into details, when telling of close combat occurances, which also needs some definition. Included can be anything from close range fire fights, grenade throwing and actual hand to hand combat. Excerpt from CSI BATTLEBOOK_11-B, FORET de GREMECEY-FOREST, page 4: On 26 September, the Germans launched a deliberate attack to penetrate 35th ID sector and re-take Nancy. By the 28th, the Germans had established a foothold in the Foret; all three regiments from 35th ID were engaged. A US counterattack on the 29th was defeated, and heavy close combat raged throughout the day and night. How to interpret?

Nonetheless, I´ve learned a couple of useful things from this thread and got inspired to deal more in detail with the various map targets, when it comes to scenario making.

"Charging or attacking with bayonet" was just one example of various possible when speaking of "close combat", so no need to stick at it. It could be using fist, rifle butt, entrenching tool, knive or ...fixed bayonets. I do not know the WW2 training regulations for the US, but I have most for germans of that period. I do not want to go into details now, but close combat was not constantly trained without purpose. And we´re still speaking of WW2, not CW, Korea, Vietnam or Iraque. CMBN game mechanics can´t be taken as measure for occurances of close combat situations. I think it´s purposely modelled this way, maybe a leftover from CMSF, where shooting out an inferior enemy from its positions was the normal precedure. For now, I´m not unhappy for lack of close combat modelling and as said, it´s not a game breaker but would be a nice to have in further modules.

Ok, assuming you´re in a combat situation like the ones mentioned above. Were you trained to first move the wounded into security, or if not applicable and the wounded needs immediate treatment, would you at least try from where you are in prone position, or rather wait until the environment is more secure? But actually this is a different topic, as BA does not assume the presence of true medics. Another question is, what means did have WW2 infantry at hand to apply first aid in combat situations and how did they do historically? :confused:

Yep, but we don´t have medics and BA can´t be "controlled", at least not if you´re staying with the wounded at the place where the WIA occured. I wonder that nobody has any concerns with reloading small arms in full view and exposure of the enemy. I mean, if cover is actually available at the current place AND a soldiers just needs to go to kneel or lay down position to reload in full cover. I´d say, in MY games unnessecary exposure from reloading small arms and BA makes at least 20% additional losses.

I correct: "......the countless examples in MY game plays show buddy aiding soldiers die like flies." Note: I´m intensively working on sceanrios where (human played) germans are on the defense and thus do not move that much until counter attack locally. The infantry in their defensive positions do BA quite oftenly, but I can´t move them out just to prevent this. They more often than not feel "secure" in their foxholes and trenches, exposing themselves partly outside while doing BA, ignoring "hide" and nearby enemies. Thus I loose many additional soldiers due to unnecessary, uncontrollable exposure. So applying BA from prone, lay down stance in this and any other circumstance would not help prevent unnecessary losses among buddy aidees? "Sorry Hans, I actually can´t now treat your wounds, as we´re told in first aid course that we just can do from kneeling position outside the trench, but as it´s an honor to die for this purpose,...I´ll do" If in YOUR games, you´re constantly on the move, securing your wounded offensively and let BA be applied by follow up troops, THEN you surely do not see the problem that oftenly, I agree. In Wombles post further above, another situation is described where uncontrollable BA leads to further unnecessary losses. Another way to solve the "problem", would be to enable/disable BA per unit base by use of a switch temporarily.

Ok...figured it out finally. The shelters fit a crew of 9 overall and if embarking a full squad (of 9), it would be the "driver" (or doorman...) and normal vehicle embarking/dismounting procedure applies. If the squad is split, preferably a scout team of 2-3 men, then this is to mount the shelter first, serving as driver/doorman. Now the remaining squad can mount second and after that can move out again, with normal move commands. So if using bunkers, it appears to be wise to have at least 2 units mount it, with the one entering first, that you prefer to move out last (preferably a very small team).

Yet another video showing that wooden shelters actually provide enough overhead cover vs. direct 82mm mortar hits, but the oversize fighting aperture and the inability of the crew to effectively take cover within, makes it vulnerable from near hits outside and occasional shells passing right through the aperture at the frontside. In the video, the shelter takes 4 direct mortar hits in short time, without harming the crew: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8pOxaxviGEI

Yep, as I do for quite some time already (trenches and/or foxholes in -1 height AS). I´d zig zag the trenches as they did in RL every 10 meters or so.

Agree. Already went away from the "binary method" for some time and found "destroy unit" objective (combined with terrain objectives) more useful in most circumstances. Yet have to find good use for the Mission Parameters, but I could imagine they could be good for enforcing branching in campaigns.

I just browsed (again) my large collection of WW2 western front ebooks with "bayonet" keyword and found it mentioned often enough in relation to close combat situations, that I wouldn´t say it were rare occurances. Germans probably used it more often than US did, not for the lack of nuts, but rather for their superiority in close range and general firepower. It´s maybe not quite a popular topic to discuss in combat reports, when it´s just enough to tell.."we went into german positions and slaughtered them", but do not give details about how they actually did it. "close combat is abstracted and then represented by the game as an odd-looking close range firefight" No idea about that and not a professional abstraction IMO. If again it´s a lack of animation sequences, then just reuse an existing one, add a "stab enemy sound" (similar to CMX1), done. Way more convincing than point blank shoot outs. It´s not a game breaker, yet a nice to have. :cool: Edit: Found a nice little example from "The Lorraine Campaign" (page 95): "The Congressional Medal of Honor was awarded to 2d Lt. Edgar H. Lloyd for leading his men through a deadly cross fire, knocking out the first German machine gunner he met with his fist, and killing the crew with a hand grenade. In this fight Lieutenant Lloyd personally accounted for five machine guns. Sgt. William B. Humphrey was awarded the DSC for action that took place at the same time when he killed numerous German machine gunners with bayonet and grenades." I think those occurances were pretty rare. ...or not?