RockinHarry

So something get to work is this: By rknharry at 2011-06-02 100m bocage sectors are defended by roughly 1-2 infantry squads, with 2-3 LMG (I doubt, there were many true tripod HMGs incorporated, if LOF is just 100-200m.) Infantry and LMG teams occupied 2-3 men rifle pits with adjoining small dugouts at the hedgerows. Germans mostly occupied the fields containing trees & orchards for overhead concealment. The "enemy" fields are mostly of the meadow type, or have scattered trees. I´d also assume germans cut down many of the apple trees to improve field of fire and for use as foxhole cover. Lateral movements are provided by small gaps in adjoining hedgerows and well concealed by the many trees and frontal hedgerows, thus there was no true necessity to build trenches between positions. One can also assume germans to have each field "registered" for artillery, as well as suspected enemy assembly zones. Single buildings/hamlets were mostly spared, since they attract enemy artillery. I just can do guessings about use of obstacles and minefieds, but I´d assume that "roadblocks" at least would be "booby trapped" and weakly held sections would be strengthened with AP mines. AT guns would cover usable roads and crossroads.

Found this to be quite useful to determine predominant types of terrain in normandy (campagne, bocage): http://translate.google.com/translate?js=n&prev=_t&hl=de&ie=ISO-8859-1&layout=2&eotf=1&sl=de&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.normandie-netz.de%2F165%2FLandschaft-und-Umwelt.html So it mostly depends upon a specific area (of normandy), whether fields are predominantly meadows & apple trees, or crops.

I can confirm from my playing of Busting the Bocage, although I have no idea of the AI plans for this scenario. Would like to know if AI plans have any effects on units, if particular scenario side is human played. How does the AIP make (good) use of TRPs? Do "hidden" units unhide earlier to engage enemy units, if they enter TRP zones? I could think of trying to beef up bocage with additional "concealment" layers (light/heavy forest, ect.), restrict lines of fire within the fields between bocage lines, proper placement of half squads / LMG teams in accordance with the map edited fire lanes and use of a reasonable number of TRPs for the defender. If still none of the AI plans can get to work with this sort of "bocage defense", then I think BFC needs to think about some tweaking.

Interesting! I was just trying the same in the editor, placing "heavy forest", "Tall grass" and "brush" beneath the bocage/hedge variants, although I could do no tests in the demoes editor. "heavy forest" should also make the "tall bocage" layer unbreachable, or at least "impassable" to vehicles if it can be breached. Another point of interest would be the predominant type of terrain in the fields between the bocage. I wouldn´t necessarily assume the fields would be all low grass, dirt or plowed field, in order to have full view across the whole field up to the opposing bocage line. If terrain obstructions would be present (fields in June/July 1944), it was more of a common defenders practice to "cut" fields of fire, instead of removing all of them. A map maker can do the same, by proper placement of ground types (variations of dirt, low grass, brush and crops).

We´ll see, if the 1.01 patch will improve on cover/concealment matters enough, to get sorts of a historical german bocage defense setup working at last. At least some of the artillery vulnerability vs. infantry in FHs/trenches is beeing dealt with (bug). http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=97855&page=3 Wished there would be a modifier (abstracted), that gives defending units, if they do not leave their initial positions, sorts of a concealment bonus, if the battle is of the "assault" type and defending units can be assumed to be well prepared/concealed. Or like in CMX1, that HQs/leader traits give a camouflage bonus to subordinates. Do "Ambush 75" and "Hide" AI zones help the defender in any way?

Thanks! I already had a guessing about that, since the US HMG and ammo bearer teams did not "recombine" in Road to Berlin scenario. So the full game has 2-3 men german HMG teams purchasable? Or would I need to buy "understrength" HMG teams and ammo bearers (as I guess) to get them properly seperated?

Wondered if this sort of placement allowed reoccupation of FHs/trenches, once they were abandoned. The "best" bocage defense I applied so far, was having an outpost line (2-3 men teams, snipers) just at the bocage, with main forces either 1-2 action spots or whole bocage field behind in FHs or trenches. Staying away from trees helped vs. artillery. Registered mortar fire does the main work on attacking infantry. Creating "strongpoints" around hamlets in connected trench lines, with just having OP in upper stories (if present) also makes a tougher opposition. HMGs are best placed with "long" fields of fire from flanking positions, which in bocage terrain means, along roads that need to be crossed by enemy infantry sooner or later. Field of fire s/b 300-400m minimum. Otherwise, small LMG teams are way better suited at close ranges. HMG teams also must be covered frontally by terrain and friendlies. All that worked quite well in Busting the Bocage vs. US AIP, but a human US opponent would be similarly challenged I guess. Edit: Off course this particular setup "cheats" on the US AI plans for this scenario, but generally serves quite well for the demonstration purpose. Uploaded with ImageShack.us

...just from my experiences with the demo. In Road to Berlin demo scenario, US HMG sections show gunner and ammo bearer teams. The other demo scenarios do not show splitable HMG sections, neither for US nor germans. Is there different variations of HMG sections in the full game, that can either be split or not? I find german (full strength) HMG sections beeing too large to be actually put into the frontline. Historically, 2-3 guys were forward and the ammo bearers took cover somewhat to the rear. So in the game, the HMG sections show too large of a target and with the ammo beares beeing forward, shooting their rifles as well, concealment/camoflage of the whole unit is almost nil.

I´ve even seen this "procedure" mentioned in some german field regulation as .... expedient for quick reaction shooting vs. low flying aircraft. But MG34/42 shooting assault rifle style??? According to this: ..surely doable, but wasn´t quite common practice.

Confirmed. I´ve noticed that oftenly, when the MG gunner wouldn´t have a clear LOF otherwise. Wielding the MG34/42 like an assault rifle is something I find quite annoying for the mentioned reasons, although I guessed that maybe internally the MG is assumed to be leaned at something, without having a proper animation.

I too figured that, once I played 2 scens from the demo, german side (CtP & BtB). The german HMG teams are too big of a target and unrealistically deployed by the game engine. Realistically, you have 2-3 guys forward, operating the gun only, with the remaining (ammo bearers) guys kept rearward and in cover. I more than once wished to split the HMG squad into 2 components to get that happen. You can also keep unwanted shooters to the rear this way.

unfortunately can´t remember if the gun was engaged or yet unengaged.

Noticed a guy "planning" (team leader?) in a PAK 40 AT crew just recently.

I particularly like the "wet looks" of the PSW and Panther! Oftentimes the "dry/dusty" looks of the vanilla vehicles look odd, when weather is set to rain.

Exactly! While it would be desirable to have some inherent "squad tactics" implemented (maybe even with national doctrines considered), troop density alone forces one to split squads in most situations anyway. One of them is the "tank harassing" duty. While split off marksmen, somewhat seperated from the remaining squad members, may be allowed some "free shooting", the remaining guys are better set with a short covered arc, until it´s clear what the main targets will be, once they move into line of fire. Works ok for me, until BFC pulls off something better.

If the terrain allows, I´d try to assign snipers, small MG teams, or generally teams no larger than 2-3 men to take the duty of harassing enemy tank crews from covered/concealed positions. Preferably have them somewhat seperated (farther away, keyholed) from those friendly units, that you want to fight enemy infantry only. So the point is actually to adapt a forces engagement tactics (fire plan) to prevent unwanted shooting at "wrong" targets".

Yep, RockinHarry, Panzer Elite Brit44/B41 and PEDG with Aldo in the lead during last years of my participation, which I had to stop for various reasons. This is a couple of years gone now. And yes, I recall your nick from the forums. Panzer Elite has some really good features (obsolete graphics engine left aside), but under given circumstances almost impossible to bring on current standards. SFK 1942 and T34vTiger are quite good simulations with gorgeous graphics. Too bad, I lack time to actually play them or make maps/scenarios.

I tried some in the demoes editor, but due to the abcense of units, I used some flavor object (shack) instead. A "direct height" spot, sourrounded by "direct height" about 2-3 meters higher does the trick, although the "hole" is still a bit large and smooths out at the edges. In order not to make it too suspicious to a human player, the surrounding terrain needs to be of rather rough and varied nature. Btw, this is actually the game modders standard "expedient" in games like Battlefield 2 or Armed Assualt 2 which inherently do not provide "underground features", nor small 3D submeshes editable to serve as foxholes or trenches. Whole new 3D models were created (house with basement, a 3D trench with surrounding terrain ect.), that would finally be imported to the standard game and then "molded" into holes and depressions of the standard ground mesh. Unfortunately BFC does not support import of user made 3D objects. With the fix on the foxholes in oncoming patch 1.01, some of the mortar lethality should probably be lessened. Yet the lethality of US mortars with super quick fuzes and treebursts, lack of overhead cover still should be very noticable. Remains the "balancing" issue in user made scenarios and QBs, with regard to availability of artillery assets.

in no particular order: Free, unbound to units, line of sight tool. (although movement command and checking LOF by use of "target" on particular waypoint works to some extent) "wet looks" for various objects in the game, including vehicles and soldiers, when weather is rainy. Color shades would be generally darker tone and smooth surfaces have a bit of shinyness added. Rain soaked clothes have a considerably darker tone and dry, dusty surfaced also turn darker, dependent upon material. True "underground shelters" (basements, dugouts). Could be abstracted (like buttoning a vehicle, or CMBB "sewer movement") Towers, that serve as observation positions (in absence of hills or high buildings). OR trees, also serving as sniper positions. Small size (1-5 meters width) brooks, creeks, drainage ditches, that are not just bound to the floor level. That should not lead to a waterfall simulation necessarily... More varied and more realistic looking damage levels for buildings. Less densly packed infantry squad formations, with selectable frontages and certain orders (skirmish line, column, staggered, ect.). Option to select a certain weapon system to shoot at a particular target and range. In example, just let the squads LMG gunner engage targets and keep the other guys in the suad idle and in cover. Armor cover arc, preferably in conjuntion with normal (vs. soft) cover arc. Movable waypoints. "True medics", or medical aid stations. Tread marks on any non hard ground. Improved models and animations for destroyed and burning AFVs. Fire effects, burning terrain, flame throwers. A top view map mode, similar to CMX1 5-9 modes, that is a 2D presentation of the 3D map (billboards), preferably with contour lines shown, shadows disabled automatically...in all looking more like a topographical map. If this can´t be automated/created on the fly, then a map maker should be given the tools to hand craft these map and loadable with a user made scenario/map. Ability to load "grayscale maps" (or multi color coded), that can be loaded into the map editor and then translate to terrain and height variations automatically. (Mapping Mission for CMX1 can do this) Individual, distinguishable weapon sounds. Environmental audio for weapons, explosion and voice sounds. In example, sounds are perceivably different, when in a forest, within a town, at night or bad weather. Could add a lot to the "you are there" impression and immersion. I could imagine a map maker adding "sound zones" to a map manually and with the player camera entering/hovering the zones, a "prerecorded" different sound would be played instead of the generic sounds. PhysEx support. Multicore processor support. That´s just few, that come into my mind...hehe

Would be interested to know as well. Some of that is covered in this thread, but probably leaves some particular questions unanswered: http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=97443

I too have (german) manuals to my avail, but those prescribing tank engagement guidelines are all pre-/early war and quite vague in nature. I guess this mostly counts for "engaging" early war single tanks with infantry fire power, on an enemy that has little developed, sensible machinery and combined arms tactics, as well as lacking experienced, good morale crews. I remember some accounts from the french and early eastern campaigns, where amassed infantry fire was applied on single (buttoned) tanks, in order to shake the crews morale, but I do not think that there were many vital parts of the AVF, that could effectively be damaged this way. Engaging an unbuttoned crew is rather "safe" from return fire, when either single marksmen are used (from well covered, concealed position) or MG fire at greater distance, where the buttoned tank has little to no chance to discover the firer. From reading various accounts, if vision blocks or similar equipment should be affected, then either AT rifles are used, or rifles/MGs loaded with special AP ammunition. But again, this would be tasked to single marksman (either with AT rifle, MG or rifle) and from concealed positions. Before all, infantry is to fight enemy infantry, unless it has a reasonable chance to hurt/kill an AFV by close combat means.

I would assume wooden bunkers/shelters beeing similarly vulnerable to direkt HE/AP, as in CMX1. The "hardened bocage defense" as described above, just has its value when the shelters are positioned behind cover (rear slope of a hill, behind a house, high bocage, terrain depression, ect.) out of direct LOF for HE/AP, just providing benefits vs. treeburst shrapnel and mortar hits. I´d like to have true underground cover, but currently the overground bunkers/shelters is the best we have, for the purpose.

I´ve noticed in Busting the Bocage demo scen, that some my infantry units (incl. HMG) shooting at buttoned tanks, when these moved into a preset covered arc. But there was also enemy infantry "near" (10-20m) the tanks, so it could be, the infantry was targeted, but some stray bullets hit the buttoned tank as well. Hard to tell, since oftenly one can hardly distinguish who is shooting who (on single soldier base).

Thanks for the good news and efforts put in there!

Thats´s my impression as well. Would be good to get away from certain randomizations, at least for particular "fixed" action spot positions, like foxholes. I know, foxholes aren´t really "fixed" either, as one can sees the random rotation applied. In case of the german HMG section, I´d wish at least the HMG gunner be fixed for a chosen setup. (should apply to all "key" weapons within squads, at least for support weapon squads/sections, =AT, LMG, HMG...) Is the LOS be drawn genereically from the center of the occupied action spot (it seems so)? FH´s and trenches also show "bases" (that circle + 3 triangles thingy), normally indicating a units facing. In "Busting the Bocage" these always face "east" during setup. Does this have any (hidden) functionality in the game?