RockinHarry

Hand to hand combat did not happen very often?? :confused: Ok...leaving that aside for the more civilized western front for now, but what could have happened more realistically in the video shown above? The (played by AI) US GI´s were to assault the german strongpoint in the mids of the forest and finally succeded. Would they prepare for that, fixing bayonets beforehand? I ordered the german crew from the shelter to disembark, but I (they) wasn´t aware, the Gi´s were already in the trenches before the bunker. Both sides were pretty surprised to find each other eye to eye, so what could have happened realistically? I´d say the germans would have raised hands instantly, even when considering they´re veterans and in OK status. Beeing decimated, cut off and obviously surrounded in this death trap leaves not much of an option. The US GIs having the advantage of semi automatic rifles, the germans have not and when in the mids of the enemy would not find much of an oportunity to operate their bolt action rifles quick enough. So they either surrender, run for their lives, or...engage in hand to hand combat. The video shows 2 germans pitted vs 5 GIs in closest proximity (with maybe a dozen more nearby), so at last I´d promote the remaining german soldier the iron cross and golden close combat badge...posthumously.

I know about kneeling animation for BA, but I obviously was unclear with desired prone stance? :confused: Well... there´s no secure area for buddy aid, as the countless game play examples shows buddy aiding soldiers die like flies. Beside lack of animation sequence, I see no reason not to have BA applied from a prone position. Better have it as "default" in secure and unsecure situations. Also see no RL relation that BA MUST be applied from kneeling position.

Hope this is yet on BFC to do list, but please add kneel down or prone stances for soldiers applying buddy aid, or reloading small arms. Buddy aid should be applied from prone stance when under enemy LOS and soldiers should go for full cover as well, when loading new mags or rifle clips. It´s quite disturbing to see self sacrificing of these guys when act this way under enemy LOS/LOF. If it´s for lack of having animations for these actions, I could live with expedients (use LMG gunner reloading sequence, just swapping weapons) or abstractions (buddy aiding soldier laying down, turning toward wounded mate, rifle (...) on back). The soldiers actions (Medic, reloading) then can be indicated in the transparent text area at bottom left (hows that info area thing called actually?)

Well...it has been asked for previously, but when do we see real hand to hand combat, including bayonet, rifle butt and entrenching tool use? As seen in this video... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8W9QEez98e4 ....point blank shoot outs look...erm...a bit "unrealistic". :eek:

Repeated the above test. Clicked the PB (HMG) icon which was in "posession" of the Btl. HQ (I obviously loaded it first in there), then clicked "dismount". BOTH units created a movement point into the trench and dismounted into it orderly during the action phase. On another test, this time the HQ support team posesses the pillbox (random swap, after reload game). The Btl. HQ can "move" out normally, while the HQ support team had to wait, until the Btl. HQ exited. Obviously one team serves just like the "driver" in a truck/APC/jeep, with the other team beeing the "loadee". Think that explains it some.

Shows some off the oddities for pillboxes in the game well. With the gridded terrain, one also notices that the pillboxes are not placed at the center of an action spot, but rather in an arc on the edges (to enable creating the rectangular pit when "sunken"?), depending upon "Face". Might be this the cause of the odd disembarking behavior? I had an occasion lately where a disembarking order created a visible and editable waypoint behind the (concrete) pillbox into an AS with a trench. I had 2 small units in there (Btl. HQ + HQ support team). I clicked the HMG floating icon (icon for the pillbox) and the waypoint appeared. During the turn, BOTH units disembarked into the trench. Next turn:

Made some quick test with occupying a large uncontested (US units outside) 1000 point value zone with just a regular, normal motivation FO (~60 points) in there. Points awarded. Changed the FO to conscript, poor motivation (~40 points). This FO went to shaken by it´s own inexperience and lonelyness during 60 seconds of game play. Ceased fire and yet this FO gained the 1000 points. :confused: From the game manual, leaving bits of interpretation (page 116): "... Keep in mind that points for a specific objective are only awarded once and that 10 separate spots for a single objective means that the player must pay attention to ALL 10 spots, not just one...."

I actually like the split team feature, but some of the application is flawed. In example an assault moving german squad will send the support team with the LMG first, which actually should move last until it has covered the movement of the rifle team. Might be it is for US squads also. Didn´t have a look at them lately. The application of the AIP is terrible, when it uses advance, assault and max assault movement modes (for infantry units). Cohesion of units is terribly ripped apart, with all its C2 and other problems, which makes the AI performing even worse. I now tend to use "Quick" more in situations, where the game manual suggests to use "advance" and "assault", as this keeps unit cohesion way better and gives an attacking AI infantry more punch in situations where you need it. Off course it all depends upon terrain moved over, but I figured a "Quick/Active" command set gives more chances of success, when assaulting an enemy postion in high density terrain (urban, forest ect.) Otherwise the AI gets its units shredded piecemeal, when using assault ect. with split teams sent forward one after another. Also I dislike BFCs decision to make the german HMG teams not splittable. Beside the little efficiency of HMG units in the game, the 6 men crew is nothing but a large target for enemy fire and thus gets destroyed pretty quickly. A workaround could be, to have the ammo bearers assigned a different action spot behind the gunners internally, so they can be kept out of harms way in cover, when the gunner team (2-3 guys, incl. the team leader) engages the enemy.

I like the looks of this sort of constructions, but the problem is that predamaged modular buildings are even more vulnerable to any sort of fire than undamaged ones. You used a 3 story MB, damaged 2 times with ALT-SHIFT-Click? From my tests a medium intensity mortar barrage on this structure would kill/injure occupants very quickly, not something I would expect from a pillbox. Thus the protective value of pillboxes and buildings in CMBN remains questionable. During recent test plays on the little hurtgen forest prototype, I figured that the vulnerability of (wooden) shelters vs. mortar fire depends largely upon placement in relation to the enemy (allied/axis friendly) direction setting in "Mission/Data". I noticed a number of mortar shells just falling inside the wooden shelter, without damaging or destroying it. Without considering a "bug" and from my very close observation of falling shells, I figured these shells must have fallen through the shelters firing port. In these cases, most or all of the crews get killed, yet the shelter stays intact for a new crew to mount. Another vulnerable point appears to be the backdoor. Shells impacting near the backside of a bunker are likely to at least injure a crew member. If the shelter frontside is rotated away from the enemy friendly map edge, then shells falling from this direction are less likely to fall through the firing port, as well as there´s less chance for a shell impact near the frontside and killing/injuring crew members through the firing slit by blast and shrapnel effects. So if the enemy map edge is east, then rotate the pillbox north or south, thus showing the less vulnerable broadside vs enemy direct and indirect fire. In many occasions I figure this setup undesireable, if the shelter is meant to be a combat position, as you can´t obviously fire towards the main enemy frontline directly, unless friendly/enemy map edges do not coincide with general movement directions (enemy map edge EAST, but setup to attack NORTH-SOUTH across the map).

Over at CMSF forum, someone postet that it also makes a difference whether occupying troops are conscripts, green, veteran ect. in order to get the zone counted in end game score. So obviously an internal evaluation system is used, that may also relate to the point value given for the terrain objective by the scenario author. CE V2 church terrain objective is given 300 points. So what occupying unit would equal 300 points? In CMX1 unit values were shown for each formation, but in CMBN do not unless checking the QB force selection screen. A regular german infantry platoon equals ~200 points, relating in point value to a regular Panzer 4H tank at about 220 points. A regular sniper team is at 24 points and oviously that wouldn´t be counted to "control" a 300 point objective. Yet I think a certain ratio is involved that also may take into account size of terrain objective. I´d suspect a terrain objective like the church in CE V2 would require at least 50% of the objectives value (300), which would be at least two regular infantry (edit:) squads or a single tank maybe. Just a guess about the ratio. It could be something completely different or more complicated...:eek:

I´ve checked CE V2 in the editor and the church occupy zone is 7x5 (56x40m), but not touching the outer walls. I assume the game expects to have a minimum force in the occupy zone in order to count it "effectively" controlled. It could also depend upon overal occupy zone size, so larger occupy zones demand larger forces to occupy. Either there is am invisible point system (tanks count more than infantry), or raw headcount for infantry units is considered. Additionally there is the 3D element, with the large church and 3+ stories, requiring even more troops to occupy. So for the 56x40m occupy zone + church, I´d expect to have a full infantry platoon in there to command the place. No idea. if the game works this way or not.

Just could make me a rough impression of your efforts in the editor, but not in 3D unfortunately. OOM error struck again... Looks like a hell lot of work so far! :eek: Think the few days Schmidt-Kommerscheidt battle is well suited for a CMBN campaign string. It´s little actual forest fighting, if not taken the events in the Kall river gorge into account (116. Pz reccon cutting the line, hold by US engineers). One my old hurtgen forest projects (reaching back til CMAK) for the 28th US ID, was the initial attack on Vossenack town and the struggle for Ochsenkopf hill. Beside that I have mainly 9th US ID events on the list, which expended themselves before the 28th went in. The classic SL "The Clearing" is one of them, as well as "Wegeleins Charge" and many more I apparantly lack time for to make noticable progress. Now I´m mainly busy with prototyping, testing single combat and terrain modules, experimenting with the AI scripts and such. This should get me prepared for full scale scenario making later on.

Yet another screenie. US AI infantry took the german strongpoint position.

Made a litte demo video showing some hurtgen forest impressions: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Z3pixhxWTE A german strongpoint position (trenches + wooden shelter squad bunker) in the mids of a heavily shelled pine forest. The barrage is from 4 x US 81mm mortar platoons (12 tubes), launched by the AI by means of 4 layered support targets (Destroy) on the same area. Some experiences: Wooden shelters do not give much protection vs. US 81mm mortars. Sometimes near misses kill/injure parts of the crew, sometimes a "penetrating" hit kills all of them at once. Sometimes the crew is worn down within 2 minutes. In all cases the wooden shelter kept intact to the last, even when completely emptied of the crew. Oh well...:eek: The 81mm mortars do pulverize the trees in the area within minutes, with nothing left of them. They get stripped from foliage overtime, then the tooth picks remain, until these vanish as well. To have sorts of a fallen trees FX, I modded the bocage BMPs to show the foliage of pine "Tree E". Low bocage (gaped sections "- -") then was used to give the impression of fallen pine tree. A log from flavor objects then was nudged into the gap and at the end. Done. Trenches are 1m deeper than surrounding ASs. Shelter is 2m deeper, thus creating the treacherous rectangular pit.

Good point.

If it´s ©, it could be that even the unit behind the wall is counted, as it can put fire into the churches 2nd story and above:

Yep, fully aware of that. Can´t hurt to point BFC to some issues prematurely, although they surely have considered some of that already. I also wanted to point to the games current limitations with regard to hurtgen forest battles and the like. Doesn´t hurt to know if someone wants to dive into something like that in CMBN (...as I do).

Is your Ramadi map available seperately? I found it at GAJ Mod Place, but I do not owe the Marines module, so can´t load. From my further testing I found diagonal buildings and streets combined troublesome. I can´t get vehicles to move along such streets, as obviously the AS center points are always intersected by the diagonal building walls. Generally, if any 3D objects (flavor objects excluded maybe) cross an AS center point, I expect trouble with regard to path finding. :eek: While the diagonal street looks passable for the Kubel, the game will reject. You see why in map editor view:

I´m struggling with creating hurtgen forest like battles since CMAK and the main problems are that certain aspects of the battle can´t be created well, or not at all. 1. German pillbox fortifications. These were the strongpoint centerpieces, mainly used for sheltering purposes, less oftenly as actual fighting positions, which were outside in trenches and foxholes. In CMBN troops in there are quite vulnerable vs. anything and once "knocked out" (with the game assuming them as vehicles), can´t be reoccupied again. What we need is more of a building type structure with 1-2 small loop holes (or none at all), that can be occupied by either sides forces. 2. Deadly treebursts. Initially germans were suffering less from it than US troopers, as germans could shelter in quickly build small dugouts (2 men foxhole with built in small shelter section covered with logs and earth), that give cover vs. shell splinters and medium mortar (<= 82mm) direct hits. Since there´s not something like that in CMBN, one either has to rule out adding artillery to a scenario (assuming a bombardement has taken place pre battle), or works around by adding numerous wooden type squad shelters as expedient. However, these are large targets for direct hits from artillery and a single penetrating hit from 105mm and above usually kills all occupants (team or whole squad). Beeing overground structures, they´re also discovered quickly and offer even more of a target for any direct fire. Burying them into the ground by means of locking an AS 2-3m deeper than surrounding, creates very suspicious looking rectangular pits Also the "disembarking" routine moves occupants foolishly into enemy LOS and fire. 3. heavily beaten forest terrain None of CMBN forest types is thick enough (pine tree forest) to model forest parts, heavily bombarded and thus turned to a maze of craters, fallen trees and branches. In CMBN, once a forest has been very heavily bombarded, trees simply vanish, with nothing left but a cratered WW1 style landscape. While very good defensive terrain as such, there´s nothing left of what you would expect to be a wild mess of fallen trees ect., providing even more concealment and also beeing a difficult obstacle for movements through.

I haven´t made any explicit tests with short range (or any) area target yet, so I can´t tell, but assume you´re quite correct. Just remembered some occasions during general scenario test play, observing the AI in action. I´ll definitely have more of a watch on grenade count in the future, but the only oddity is the "close assault" abstraction, which sometimes leads to wrong assumptions about hand grenade usage and "expected" count drop. Too bad, there´s nothing to be found in the game manual.

"What is 'splitting squads'?" Although an explanation on how it works in CMBN, it isn´t quite true for WW2 german combat historically. Germans abandoned the fire team/assault team concept directly after their experiences in the 1939 Poland campaign, after which the whole squad was kept intact (for movement and fire purposes) and the formerly applied team tactics raised to platoon level, with now the squad beeing the smallest tactical unit. However, splitting teams is currently the only means to counter bunching up infantry in single action spots, but if one takes it not too seriously using team (half squad) tactics, its valid to model small scale inner squad tactics, when the squads are more or less SELF DEPENDENT (no support available, from neighboring squads or heavy weapons). "How do I fine tune the positioning of my infantry squads" You may also note that as explained in the GM, "Face" relates to an absolute map (action) spot. The map spot clicked can be a ground tile, a 3D object (house incl. different stories, tree, ect.) or an enemy unit (its floating icon). Single soldiers then seek LOF/LOS vs. that specific action spot or an enemy unit within, as well as COVER within the currently occupied action spot. "Do cover arc give spotting bonus?" You may overwork by latest info given in this thread: http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=100368&page=4 CA´s also try to "optimize" single soldiers placements within an action spot, to cover the selected area with all eyes available, unlike "Face" which relates to just a single selected action spot (or enemy unit).

I´ve not watched grenade expenditure count that much so far, but during some scenario testing in WEGO scenario author test mode, I observed a US infantry split team (can´t remember if it was the assault team), dropped half a dozen grenades on an empty (intact, but non occupied) german bunker without the grenade count going down. I suspect it was the "close assault" vs. vehicles thing in action and although one can see single soldier throw grenade animations, it obviously does not count vs. hand grenades. Think after I had removed the bunker in question from the "unit target" (U1) list, it wasn´t assaulted anymore. Sometimes I see grenade count dropped correctly AFTER the action phase (in the subsequent orders phase).

I´d tried and didn´t see noticable AI path finding problems, but as "interior walls" appear to be ignored for LOS/LOF and cover/concealment matters, it doesn´t anyway make sense to place them this way. I also suspect intersecting houses with 3D objects like walls to cause unwanted "side effects", so I have my doubts with "reinforcing" buildings placed off centered with walls to have any good effects. Maybe Steve can shed some light on this as well...

Correct. Also worth for scenario makers (or players setting up their wire if possible) to consider, is placing wire at least outside hand grenade range of the defenders positions. This would be at least for the "hasty" squad or strongpoint defense. The more elaborate defense would also see wire to be placed farther into no mans land, but usually this involves engineer support, sufficient time and the attacker yet farther away from the MLR.

Off course you´re right, although that are even finer details of obstacle tactics. Beside suppressing any defender likely covering wire obstacles with fire, what about night time, fog and smoke? It´s also about how elaborate one assumes a defenders position. "Simple" wire obstacles are usually laid shortly after having dug in, with more elaborate ones if time and means (incl. engineer support) available. I´d assume the CMBN wire obstacle to be of the "elaborate" type, which only can be cut through assuming a pre game setting with wire cutting teams sent in during the night prior to an assault. It´s maybe up to a scenario designer to have something like that considered.