RockinHarry

Meshuggah - Bleed...while playing no music...while designing

If the "dumbing down" of machine guns is purposely made for the sake of "balancing", one way to work around is knowing the fact that in 1944/45, germans were constantly in short supply of heavy weapons and also machine guns. It´s not unusual for (german) infantry units, even after refitting, but more so after prolonged combat, not to have LMG for all infantry squads and even just parts of the heavy MGs left in TOE. I just checked in editor --> Units, when Formations = Poor is selected, a resulting german Grenadier Btl. still has all LMG and heavy weapons included in the TOE. I would have expected about at least 50% of LMGs & HMGs removed, but it is not so. This would be more of a "balancing", assuming properly performing MGs vs. fully equipped US infantry. But US HMG performance is equally effected and thus suffers even more in its intended role.

From my observations, "suppression" effects do not differ with more or less skilled shooters. A dug in US HMG maybe receives ~10 bursts in one minute at range 500-600m from 2 elite HMG42 and maybe 2-3 bursts at max, hit close enough to make few guys of the veteran HMG crew duck down for few seconds. The actual gunner never was forced to interrupt his firing on advancing german infantry (no shooting back, short covered arc), 300m away. I have my opinions about all that expressed in another thread already, so I leave it at that. Just one detail...each individual HMG42 expended exactly 61 rounds in this 1 minute shootout. This could even hardly be described as "harassing" fire, with regards to the HMG42 RL capabilities and its tactical employment doctrine. To remember: In RL and for this particular task, the 2 HMG42 would concentrate their fire on a single target with continuous bursts of 1-2 belts (50-100 rounds), to get the desired "suppression" effect. (enemy HMG, dug in) Also the 500-600m engagement range is way within optimal fighting range for the tripod HMG to deliver accurate point fire. Edit: Did another quick test and placed a TRP on each of the US static HMG positions. Now burst accuracy for both HMG42 was noticably better and also 1-2 more bursts were expended during the 1 minute turn (overall 70-80 shots). Looks like without the TRP the HMG gunners simply forget their aim settings between the bursts and started anew each time with differing (in-) accuracy.

As for unmarked "boggy ground", a map maker could paint any terrain type with an invisble bog layer, adding certain % of bogginess to the terrain. Thus you can paint obvious areas (riversides, wet pastures, fields ect.) independently from general ground condition settings. Using the ugly mud tile for such cases obviously is no option (no FOW, ugly mud tile replaces what rather should look like simple grass, field, muddy road...). Think most coding efforts would go into the editors interface and having the bog chances applied and set to single action spots less so. CMN already works with various layers (setup zones, terrain objectives, order zones), so implementing different, simple purpose layers shouldn´t be that difficult. In another thread I also mentioned "sound FX" layers, that enables certain sound zone layers painted on the map and when the game camera moves close, or into them, certain sounds could be triggered (see Men of War & ARMA) or altered (reverb sound for inhouse or city fights, ect.).

All very hard. Latest tests indicate that "active" (=moving) infantry units can already be spotted way beyond the 300m mark, depending on terrain, probably beyond 500m and more. Best not to rely on what one thinks of "concealing" terrain, high grass, brush and such and instead use scouting paths well within cover terrain (forest), or behind (depressions, defilade, houses...) and then go "slow" mode with short covered arc to desired vantage points. If you go under 300m in fairly open terrain, autospotting each other is almost guaranteed.

I guess, has something to do with visible set up zones layer. But it´s just a guess.... Edit: Just checked with my urban test scenario, which had lots of laggyness few days ago. Now it´s gone. Odd... Only changes I made to my WinXP system lately, was disabling virtual memory (swap file) and leaving it at that, as well as removing NVidia System Control from autostart and system tray.

Thought of that too, but OTOH I very much like (modded) highway for use as city pavement & sidewalks.

+1 Good observation. I observed it in a test play scenario yesterday, very closely. I was attempting to have two german HMG42 support a company attack on a US foxhole line at range of 600m. With C2 well established overall and attacking infantry spotting dug in US units at ranges just over 300m, the HMG42 started blasting away already in turn 1-2. Started with Regulars and observed in magnified vision (X key) from the individual HMG42 positions on targets. Deviation of individual bursts on targets varied greatly, just as the gunner had to reaim and calculate for each new burst again and again, but never remembered the right settings. As said, this is from a static HMG42 position well behind advancing german infantry and range to targets is between 500-600m. I changed the quality of the HMG teams up to Elite, Fanatic motivation and +2 leader...and it didn´t make the slightest difference, in aiming and burst deviation behavior. At last the two "supporting" HMG42 were hardly a nuisance for the defending US infantry and gathered kills after the battle were between 1-3. Btw, I gave the defending US 2 "supporting" HMG as well (veterans in foxholes) and these did not work any better...vs. a whole company of assaulting germans. Gathered 1-3 kills. So tripod HMG42 are not any better than LMG42 carried by assaulting teams, completely neglecting the capabilities of the tripod, optics sight and it´s elite gunners. Sad story.

Need to remind, that I made the tests with a firm set of parameters, unless otherwise noted: Map: All flat (20m default) All "Grass" (nothing else, not even grass variations) Weather: Clear Time of day: Noon US & Germans (ALL units): Regulars Normal Motivation Leadership 0 Fit Spotters are moving in "hunt" mode & short 360° covered arc. No covered arc, vs empty foxhole test play. Defenders are "hide" mode, set in editor, but very IMPORTANT...I also changed the default "Plan1" for A1 units (all Group1) to: Setup Mixed (n.a) Hide (!) No Dismount (n.a) Exit after: 20 Exit before: 25 Single action spot setup zones for every single Foxhole position & occupying defender unit. No Allied/Axis "Parameters" (Mission) set, No terrain & unit objectives This to make "stick" all defending units for the duration of the test game and keep them on "Hide". Defending, hidden units contain teams no larger than 3-4 single soldiers, in order to avoid outside foxhole (re-) deploying. This is the standard setup used for play vs. defending AI in WEGO/Iron mode. No "Scenario Author Test" play. If any of the parameters are changed, results may differ from small to large. I just consider the 300m auto spotting of foxhole defenders on "hide" as a basis. I´ve seen spotting ranges for hidden foxhole defenders way higher and shorter, when certain parameters are changed. Spotting of empty foxholes appears to be more or less hardcoded to a certain range and less parameters are influencing spotting ranges. The "behind high wall/defilade" oddity is yet unexplained, but likely is a result of the "on top of terrain" nature of currently implemented foxholes. So when making any "test" play environments, I suggest to have sort of unified parameter sets, in order to make test results "comparable". In first tests, I neglected AI scripts for one side or the other, but when testing vs. AI, I figured that always Group1 default set is active, which might not give the results one seeks to test out, particularaly for a defending AI. Think this also offers BFC a better evaluation of what we´re actually doing.

Was the zook team green, regular, veteran?...., could make a huge difference, as well as current motivation state and leader tag. Was the team all alone in the area? LOS from prone & hide is calculated different from crouch & standing, which is obvious.

Ok, thanks. Wouldn´t have made any sense otherwise.

Can we play in oncoming CW module, US vs german paras and Schutzstaffel then? Or is the US TOE ruled out in CW module? Or vise versa, ..will german paras and the bad boys be available in the basic game, once the CW module is added? Sorry for the questions...I just have the basic CMSF game and no modules, so don´t have an idea about the whole "system" yet.

I like any such ideas that improve realism. +1 COBFTB (..well, Command Ops: Battles from the Bulge) at least allows manual setting of "known" or spotted enemy units before battles. Nonetheless, so far I find the random pre battle intel option in CMN quite a big improvement. Random stuff improves replayability, although as scenario designer one wishes to set certain details manually and have it "fixed" for a given battle. Terrain, that I´d like to see applied FOW, would be fords, bridges (impassable, damaged, ok) and "soft", bad going terrain. Generally things you need to get a foot on, or have very close ground observation on. While it seems almost impossible to code for the strat and also tac AI to deal with, why not implement any such stuff for non-AI play? With BFC current focus on RT and play vs. AI, I generally see bad times for real WEGO/H2H improvements in the near future though.

Imagine it as an APC with very good all around armor, but with a single section beeing open (unarmored) = the firing slit! Pump enough lead, HE (near blasts do as well) or AP through it, then it´s history pretty quick. Another weak spot, would be the rear door. Shelter types are equally vulnerable, than the fighting types. I really hate the "vehicle" solution. Normally, those pillboxes have a very small firing slit, that also can be closed with an armored plate, when things get too hot. Also these things just can be used by the initial owner, so once it´s "knocked out", it can´t be reused by either side or captured. "Disembarking" them under observation of the enemy, can also be a hazardous affair. Infantry can´t execute an exit properly and single soldiers move around in disorder while the team/squad attempts to order itself within the action spot.

And yet another variation oddity. Now have hiding small infantry teams in those foxholes. When the foxholes behind high wall are spotted from just the other side of the wall at point blank range, hiding defenders aren´t spotted. Not even a "?". Had to cease fire to check presence of defenders and yep, they´re still there, nose down in their foxholes. Defender AI script: Group1, Setup, Mixed, Hide, No Dismount, Exit after 20, Exit before 25. Beside that, there were no other plans or orders. Foxholes & defenders are all in single action spot setup zones to prevent shifting.

Enlarged the map (1500m) and under same parameters, attackers approached (hunt) on the foxhole line, with a single squad getting first spot of a "?" at ~350m. The same squad approached to ~320m, spotting an additional hidden unit in its foxhole. No other unit of the whole company, approaching at similar range had this spotting yet. C2 is well established within the platoons, but I did leave back the Cpy. HQ at the starting line (about 1 km to the rear). Short before the 300m distance, 6 x "?" and 2 x Foxholes + occupants are spotted. (There´s 10 Foxholes and occupants onmap) At the 200-250m range, all 10 foxholes with hidden occupants were finally spotted. (no "?" left) Edit: "Attackers" had a 360° short covered arc, to prevent shooting and keep them moving in "hunt" mode.

And another nice test: (all grass, flat, noon, clear weather, spotter/attacker in hunt mode, WEGO, Iron): The foxholes are now all occupied by small HQ and scout teams (splitting normal squads didn´t quite work, due to single soldiers reshuffling outside the foxholes, after loading the battle) and on "hide". Both, US and german forces are all regular, normal motivation, fit, leader 0. Also in order to make the hiding infantry stick with their foxhole positions, I had to assign single setup zone - action spots to all foxhole positions. Edit: Defender AI plan for the test was: Group1, Setup, Mixed, Hide, No Dismount, Exit after 20, Exit before 25. Beside that, there were no other plans or orders. Length of battle is 30, but that´s not of concern. Result: After battle start, the foxholes and its occupants (still on "hide") were spotted already at the starting line 300m away. Looks like I need to make a larger map with initial placements farther seperated...

Yep, ...looks like even high walls aren´t that massive, or the game assumes some individuals actually peeking OVER the wall.

Experience level test for initial case 1. above (all grass, flat, noon, clear weather, FHs empty, hunt mode, WEGO, Iron): Elite: 150m start spot, 90m full spot. Crack: 100-110m start spot, 60-70m full spot. Veterans: 100m start spot, 50m full spot. Regulars: 90m start spot, 40m full spot. Greens: 80m start spot, 30m full spot. Conscripts: 60-70m start spot, 20-30m full spot. Custom Bocage & Foxholes (LemuelG´s trick) vs. Regular spotters "hunt" First forward foxholes spotted at about 80m and german side (of bocage) foxholes again at about 8-16m, but US infantry is yet 1 action spot away from the high bocage at this time.

US Inf Cpy line Veteran Motivation Normal Leadership 0 Fit vs german linear FH positions (no occupants, just the foxholes) Terrain ALL "dirt" perfectly flat map clear weather noon WeGo, US play, vs German AI, Iron mode US Cpy. line starting at 300m away in "hunt" 1. Individual FHs (i.e 1 out of the 4 within an action spot) are discovered around the 100m distance and ALL FHs are spotted at distance around 50m 2. Same results for all "grass" map 3. Same results for all "grassT" map 4. Same results for all "grassXT" map 5. Results for all "light forest" map (no trees), SP = ~108m, AS = 50-60m 6. Results for all "heavy forest" map (no trees) SP = ~108m, AS = 80-90m Stopped here, as already some conclusions can be made: Ground terrain type appears not to give any concealment benefits for Foxholes. Moving units (hunt) do spot worse, than stationary ones (known), but if terrain makes a unit moving slower than normal, spotting range is increased. Now for another test run. Same as initial setup (all grass, ect.), but FH´s placed in 1m deep single action spot depressions. Results same as 1. 2m deep single action spot depressions = same result (1.) Made a 1m high berm in front of FH line. (single line, 1 action spot = 21m, surrounding terrain all 20m) Same result (1.) Made a 2m high berm in front of FH line. (single line, 1 action spot = 22m, surrounding terrain all 20m). Result: Foxholes weren´t spotted, until first single US soldiers start to cross the raised berm at distance of 8-16m. Now to some high bocage placed in single line, just in front of the foxholes. Foxholes are spotted, when first single soldiers reach the high bocage, 8-10m away from the foxholes behind. Foxholes behind low bocage: First foxholes are spotted by single soldiers about 100m away. Remaining foxholes are spotted at about 50m (1.) Foxholes behind low wall: First foxholes are spotted by single soldiers about 100m away. Remaining foxholes are spotted at about 50m (1.) Foxholes behind tall wall: First individual foxholes are spotted by single soldiers about 8-10m way (similar to high bocage), but if all soldiers finally reach and align at the high wall, about half to two thirds of individual foxholes (2-3 from 4 within a single action spot) are spotted. Interesting.... Foxholes in light forest tile & 3 trees type D: First foxholes are spotted by single soldiers about 100m away. Remaining single foxholes are spotted at about 40m. Some individual tree placement obviously does matter. Foxholes in light forest tile & 3 trees type D, with an additional row of same type in front, so the actual foxhole line is one action spot behind the forest edge: First foxholes are spotted by single soldiers about 90 - 100m away. Remaining single foxholes are spotted at almost point blank range (1 action spot), with spotters already moving into the forest edge. Individual tree placement, as well as density of trees obviously does matter even more. Now some more unusual test. Line of row houses (individual, house #1) in front of the foxhole line. Perfect shielding, conceiling, until first soldiers are about half into the house and spot first foxholes behind (1 action spot stand off). Turning the row houses all to rubble (2 times ALT + SHIFT + Click). Now first foxholes behind are started to be spotted at 100m distance. Remaining foxholes are spotted at range of 40-50m. To remember, all spotters are moving (hunt), same experience & stats (veteran) and foxholes are empty. One could make dozen more tests, with stationary spotters, different experience, foxholes at last beeing occupied by someone ect. Hard to make conclusions here, but some things appear not quite to work, as one would expect.

Sometimes it´s hard to get infantry (of appropiate size = team or half squad) into FHs right, when there is competing cover in the same action spot. In setup phase you can do various tries with the "Face" command (actually is a "seek cover vs pointed action spot" command), until the all soldiers got it right. Oftentimes you have to "face" away, to get it happen, but leaves the random shuffeling of individual soldiers, even if clicking the same action spot for "face" all the time. Under running battle conditions, things are even more difficult (...to predict). Maybe a "use FHs" flag is required.

The indirect, high angle fire range for the 75mm IG 18 was 500 to 3500m AND it was mainly an indirect fire support weapon. Direct fire was used for certain tasks, but that wasn´t the primary use. A german infantry battalion normally could be expected to receive support from one section of 2 light IG guns, for use against targets the HMGs can´t effect with direct fire, or out of reach of medium mortars. Main targets, enemy heavy weapons in cover and such. That´s the basic doctrine (around 1940/41).

Independent buildings appear to be quite brittle with regard to HE and near miss blast effects. Same counts for walls. In my MOUT test scenario I let the allied AI do some 4.2" smoke (WP?) missions fall on german positions. While germans keep largely unharmed (in buildings, foxholes, craters...), the 4.2" smoke rounds do lots of medium size craters and flatten almost all walls in the area to rubble, mostly by blast effects. A german 81mm mortar HE barrage made a 3 story independent building (commercial) collapse from maybe 2-3 direct hits and a number of near hits. I had the building manually "damaged" (1 time ALT + SHIFT + Click, 2 times CTRL + Click on single walls) in the editor before, so it might be, it was already brittle, when the mortar rounds struck in the game.

Thanks, that clears some up. So the main benefit of this custom setup is that the foxhole defenders are considerably closer to the berm, providing cover accordingly. Also the bocage foliage adds concealment (as in normal, stand off setup), but as the foxholes are now "buried" into the berm, defenders also have a better view through. To sum it up: single side cover of berm + allround cover of foxholes + better view + concealment (as opposed to normal, stand off setup). Sounds much like the historical german bocage defense, as discussed before. Just need making teams small enough for this purpose (4-5 max). Working with split, understrength squads and 50% reduced HMG teams should be a way, I think.

I´ve not fully worked through your data...but what about the "no bocage/ hole" combo tested as well? Does the bocage (for defender) matter at all, while having holes, or is it ruled out by the game, since it´s initially a "no go" option? I´ve tried rubble & hole and it appeared that holes do not improve defensiveness of rubble noticeable. I´m somewhat confused with the bocage/hole setup. Did you place holes AND infantry first, THEN bocage? Otherwise, me thinks, half the squad would be seperated from each other by the bocage. Did treebursts matter, while doing the mortar tests? I think, high bocage gets some treebursts generated, even if there are no "trees" visible. What I aim to find out, is if "no go" combos really work additive and not rule out each other internally, so that only one type is considered for cover purposes. (rubble + foxhole = rubble, or bocage + foxhole = foxhole, ect.)