RockinHarry

While I did not purchased the game yet ( currently lacking the $ ), I could only do some tests in Busting the bocage, german player vs. AIP. My experiences so far: Beside lack of modelling overhead cover vs. tree/airbursts (my various comments can be found starting here) http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=97855&page=2 ...efficiency of trenches and foxholes can be improved vs (US) artillery, by placing these far from terrain that includes trees. Hedgerows qualify as well. This greatly decreases, or removes effects from tree/airbursts vs. infantry in FHs/trenches. I´ve not yet figured a rule of thumb for the distances, as it also varies with shell size/type. More generally, it is wise to disperse soldiers. Split squads to their components (assault) and place the sections in FHs/trenches at least 2 action spots apart (16m), so the actual defense width for a squad position would be closer to the historic ~30m (for germans). I also figured, that individual trench sections (singly placed) appear to be more vulnerable generally, than at least 3 trench sections connected (preferably in zig zag manner). Also this would be the preferable "squad position", with squads split in half and again seperated, by at least 1 action spot. "Hide" in FHs / trenches does not work generally. Every few seconds each individual squad or section memeber will take a peek, in a seemingly random manner, sometimes 2 or more at the same time. If then some lead or HE shell is coming close, these guys might be unlucky getting a new haircut. Note: Historically, in cases where "taking full cover" (Volle Deckung) is ordered for some time, a single squad/section member would be tasked to take observation duty, while the remaining guys really kept the heads down in / behind existing cover. So I´d wish this to work in CMBN in a similar way: Just have 1 same guy doing observation, either constantly, or in larger intervals (1-2 times per minute). This should also be the guy given the binocs, but not necessarily the squad leader. This should be the "hide" applied in/from any position currently occupied. Additionally I could think of adding a "take full cover" command, where every single soldier not just goes to "hide", constantly, but also makes itself as small a target as possible, to make the very best of "cover". That could possibly "abstracted", factored in. I´d also wish to get that combined with "pause" commands, where you can apply a "Feuerüberfall" (coordinated short mass fire on a single target) and then after a "pause", have the unit get back into "full cover" (or "hide"), in the currently occupied action spot. Usually this action takes below, say 10-20 seconds and then the "target" is either reasonably affected (killed, suppressed, routed ect.), or not. After that, there´s no more reason for a defender (also attacker), to show itself a good target for return fire. Even if some of the currently implemented "hide" (+cover arc) does some of the job, I´d like to have more control. (or implement this as part of a nations forces "doctrine", "battle drill") With all that easily said, I at least have high hopes for CMX3 or X4.

I figured this to be a huge problem, while spending several hours on setting up a more efficient german defense in Busting the Bocage (Demo). At some time, I found that perfect foxhole position spot for a HMG42 (5 men, probably understrength) to cover that paved road bend, about 240m away. I planted one of the TRPs there, that also was covered by a PAK40, from a defiladed position about 350m to the rear. Once I had everything "perfected", I took some break, saved the setup and exited CMBN. When back on it later, reloaded, I figured that the HMG section members shuffled individual positions, with the result, that the HMG (actually the whole unit), did not have LOS to that TRP and road bend anymore. Also, 2 section members were not to get into the foxholes anymore. I have to add, that it took me several attempts to get the particular section member configuration I needed, by moving the HMG section in and out of the FH position repeatedly, also trying different "face" commands. Looks like individual soldier positions (in foxholes) are not saved and thus leading to random configurations after reload. Also during game play, there´s no indication where individual soldiers will finally move to, oftenly leading to undesired results, incl. individual soldiers ending outside foxhole cover.

Thanks for your time and efforts! I´ll do some additional tests in the demo, without the bunkers though. No idea about bouncing bombs. I know of the "bouncing betty" german AP mine. Beside that, germans used low angle artillery shooting with delayed fuzes to achieve airbursts (after shell bounced), which were quite effective in russian open country vs. "mass targets".

Thanks for giving that test report. I´d be interested to know if there were any trees around (high bocage has an occasional one, I know) or within this position and how many of the casualties were from treebursts? I´d assume, even without any (visible) trees around, high bocage qualifies for treebursts as well, as US quick fuzed shells also would detonate above ground, in the small trees / scrub on top of the berm. Did the wooden bunker received direct hits anytime during the bombardement? My thoughts on gaping the Y-shaped bocage section with 81mm mortar: Maybe it´s a special case? The Y-shaped section is already "gaped" due to its placement within the straight bocage lines and it rather looks to me, just the foliage is "blasted", with the berm still intact, thus offering same "cover" (though not concealment) as before. I guess this "gap" created by mortar shelling still does not qualify for tank traversing? Did you use "Alt-T" for tree removal in this screenshot? Anyway...I´d rather use the (Y-shaped) gaped section in the flank bocage line and not the frontal (enemy) one. It´s unnecessary to "offer" an entry for enemy infantry in this direction and LOF can also be obtained from positions right at the bocage line, with or without a FH/trench one action spot back. A human (enemy) player would find the Y-shaped section quite treacherous (with the AIP more like seeing it as a welcome passage). Same goes for the "sandbagged" position, which actually is on the "wrong" side of the bocage and does not apply to FOW (??, flavor object?). Might be wrong on the latter... If I´d ordered/purchased the full game yet, I´d probably try to beef up the "Busting the Bocage" scenario with 1 wooden shelter per 1 infantry squad (or its equivalent) and see how it plays out.

Does the game always assumes the binocs to be in possession by the squad leader? While it´s mostly true that it is so historically, oftenly the squad leader assigns "observation tasks" to a particular squad member, giving him the binocs, when he´s "busy" with something more important. Think it also makes a difference, whether a squad is in an attack or defense situation. While on the attack, the squad leader is more likely to use the binocs, watching out for enemy defense positions at far range (just one example of many possible), while on the defense with regulated defense tasks for the squad members (shoot/engage enemy, when....), observation tasks & binocs would be more likely given to another squad member. Think I´ve watched oftenly the squad leader raising binocs, in situations not quite appropiate. That could be if it seems, the SL does not have LOS to anywhere useful, or when he should be occupied either in close defense or generally "directing" his squad on enemies/terrain, that does not require use of binocs. Generally I can not judge if SLs die more often, than not due to unnnecessary exposure. Just my 2 cents...

Also works (mostly) well, when ordering infantry into foxholes during setup phase (when 2 action spots are offered, while the FHs just covers 1). Have yet to test, if that works equally well during the game. It´s more micromanaging teams, but I think it´s worth getting used to it.

With regard to availabilty of wooden bunkers, I agree that could do the trick for the time beeing. At least LongLeftFlanks test scenario setup lets me believe, that with the means currently avaliable, a "hardened bocage defense" (may it be german or allied) can be simulated quite well. Let me do some analysis: From looking at the various defense sketches, a german bocage defense sector of about 100 yds is coverd by 1-2 (understrength) infantry squads, streched out to 2-3 men fighting positions (rifle pits = cut into the bocage berm from friendly side, but not necessarily beeing true foxholes) all along the hedge line. In CMBN this would either be just using cover as provided by the bocage berm (to preserve LOS across the field byond) or some foxhole position, more offering all around defense, but maybe limiting LOS across the bocage into the field beyond. The "dugouts" are mostly of the "Unterschlupf" type, just offering overhead cover for 2-3 men and either connected by ~1 meter of trench to the fighting position (rifle pit), but oftenly, when the rifle pits are of the "cut in" type, they´re somewhat seperated, but still as close as 1-2 meters from the fighting position. I´ve mainly noticed 2 variants of the "Unterschlupf/dugout" type. One is somewhat behind the bocage berm, factually a deepened foxhole (>=2 meters), with 1-2 layers of logs and covered with earth. The other is directly buried under/into the bocage berm, mainly using this natural cover above. It surely is furtherly reinforced by wooden branches, planking or logs. German "protection" charts from HDV 316, issue 1936 (field regulation of engineer service for all branches) and HDV130/11, issue 1940 (field regulation infantry, field fortifications) give following data concerning overhead cover vs. shrapnel and light mortar to be minimum: 15-20cm log layer, covererd with >=30 cm earth. The log layer(s) can be 1 layer of 15cm diameter logs, 2 layers of 10cm or any other combination, as long as minimum overall cover thickness is applied. Another combination just can be (depending upon material available), digging the "dugout" deeper, having less wooden cover and more earth cover ontop (>=50cm). The space to be "covered" would be kept minimal, generally no larger than an equivalent 2-3 men foxhole (~1,40 x 0,7 meters = ~1 square meter up to ~2 square meters, if extra "comfort" and space for weapons/ammo is to be provided). IMO this could be halfway simulated by the "shelter" type wooden bunker in CMBN, with 1 given per infantry squad and ~100 yards frontline at the bocage. The setup would probably look like this: 1 Scout section split off from the infantry squads (alternatively a sniper, ect.) serving as observation post at the bocage, with the remaining squad (or HMG section) hiding in the shelters. Once the main enemy bombardement is over and enemy infantry is entering the "killing zones", hiding infantry would man the fighting positions (bocage or foxholes behind) in "quick/fast" mode. This assumes not any of the shelter/wooden bunkers to be directly hit by anything powerfull enough to destroy it and its occupants. Now (german) defender has to decide whether to endure extra light mortar fire, with the attacking infantry "leaning onto it", or to rush back into shelter. In case of enemy infantry and tanks approaching to close range, the defender has to fight it out from combat positions, or get trapped (??) in the wooden shelters. I could think of this setup leading to more "realistic" and intense bocage fighting, as this does make the defender less vulnerable from enemy artillery, in situations, where the defender would not expect immediate attack by enemy infantry/tanks (security range!). Also "faint artillery attacks" could be applied by the attacker (lobbing some "spotting" rounds into the defenders position, letting him believe a full barrage is to follow within a minute or so) and "forcing" him to seek shelter, leaving combat positions, while the attacker rushes quickly to close combat range... The attacker, once he "cleaned" the defenders position "could" (????) also use the wooden enemy shelters vs. counterattack or enemy artillery. Is that possible?? (..enemy use of undestroyed shelters). And yes, I might have misunderstood your point about "expedient cover", meant to provide protection vs. non directly related HE effects. I´d consider this futile, but maybe decreasing the footprint of FHs/trenches and letting occupants keeping heads down in "hide" stance would be the better alternative IMHO.

Well, I never heard, nor read of any "inbetween" state of overhead cover for foxholes. There´s either (1) none at all (with exception of camouflage means, which is still no "cover"), (2) then the one I mentioned repeatedly, which is the german "Unterschlupf" explicitely built for personell of between 1 to half a dozen soldiers, to protect vs shrapnel and light mortar, (3) or full scale squad dugouts buried several meters below ground to protect vs. anything upto medium - heavy artillery (<=150mm) direct hits. This is from german references (HDV 316, HDV 130/11, as well as Wolfgang Fleischer´s "Feldbefestigungen des deutschen Heeres" and numerous less specialized accounts on the matter), but I think all other armies have very similar demands on their field fortifications under given circumstances (terrain, time, materials, proximity to enemy ect.) I think artillery and its effects (incl. air-, tree bursts) are excellently modelled in CMBN. No complaints at all so far. So with regards to (2) "Schützenloch und Unterschlupf" (foxhole and small dugout), this is the one you see above in the pics from the "St-Lo" book and the most frequently built "hardened position", BEFORE digging of connection or combat trenches would be started. So this actually would be the "inbetween" state of an improved position, from simple foxhole(s) to combat trench. This "foxhole & dugout" must not necessarily be treated like a bunker. I´d imagine, as said, this foxhole provides overhead cover ONLY when infantry is set on "hide" stance, OR when some sort of "button up" feature would be implemented. "Button up" = unit takes cover in the (invisible) small dugouts and receives benefit vs. light mortar direct hit & tree- / air bursts. Can´t shoot, nor spot, nor be seen from this stance. "Unbutton/unhide" = unit receives normal benefits vs. any fire as currently implemented, can shoot, can spot and be seen normally. That´s the basic idea.

There were various levels of bad tank / infantry coordination. Late war german tank unit commanders (also incl. independent Army Stug-, or Tiger units) oftenly complained, when subordinated to infantry unit commanders, these would "plan" and execute actions by particular demands of the infantry. This led to situations, where the tank units where sent into terrain, that wasn´t suited for tank movements (marshy, muddy terrain, generally confined ect.). Or supply and maintenance issues were completely neglected, as the infantry commanders didn´t feel any responsibility for it. Also pre battle recconnaissance did not fit the needs for tank units (terrain, mines?, enemy AT?), or infantry unit commanders completely failed to put the tank commander into the given situation, sending the tank unit into attack just when it arrived. On small scale coordination, inexperienced infantry tended to either bunch up behind armor, when on the move, or to the contrary, let the tanks move alone, in "confidence", the tanks might break the opposition all alone. This also led to situations, that infantry did not watch out for enemy AT guns or infantry AT teams, with the result that the tanks slammed straight into ambushes. The basic rule during tank / infantry coordination was that infantry protects tanks from hidden enemy AT (excl. armor) and tanks fight enemy targets dangerous to the infantry (HMG ect.). All of that is either in hands of the player, or scenario designer in CMBN.

I´ve previously thought of that as well and basically came to the conclusion, that there´s no real use for runners, even in an abstracted manner in this game (for your mentioned resaons). Agree with wire comms. At the same time, it´s both a good and a bad thing of having no command delays, as in CMX1. I´d consider this "borg reaction", but it´s surely more fun to play, as having longish command delays. Mixed bag...

German Cpy (and higher) HQ, as well as forward observers can be assumed to have radios at best, realistically. The odd thing with CMBN C2, ist that neither wire comms, nor messengers/runners are simulated, as basically this was standard comm means in german (infantry) army. Just having radio, voice and hand signal, tells just half the story, the more if there´s no command delay, unlike in CMX1. Guess this all was left out, due to the real time mode, introduced since CMSF.

Tank / infantry cooperation is the tactical level we play in CMBN, so it´s up to your own "playstyle" basically. Historically, germans in 1944/45 had few units left that were properly "trained" on regular basis, even the Panzergrenadiers. Most german units of that time period only had sufficient to good cooperation tactics, if they fought together in infantry/armor teams long enough in front line combat.

Go for abstractions. Add a further type foxhole/trench, with increased purchase cost and add an "invisible" overhead protection layer for infantry on "hide". This overhead protection layer should give 80-90% safeness from direct mortar hits (unless hit repeatedly) up to 82mm AND shrapnel from air-/tree bursts. Otherwise, scenarios s/b balanced more in ways that attackers have much less medium to heavy artillery on call, when it comes to attack "prepared" defender positions. This would be the stage, where all preparatory bombardments have been done and the (surviving) defenders are to be assumed manning fighting positions, with none left hiding in "dugouts" (that are to be assumed "nonexistent" in CM game series), or with existing "dugouts" all destroyed. In any other case, as defender I´d still avoid trees / forested areas (due to possible treebursts) as defense position if the attacker is to be assumed to have available any indirect fire assets. As Longleftflank pointed out, scenario designers can opt to beef up a defense position, by adding at least a wooden bunker in adjacent actionspot. This way you have the fighting position (=bocage) AND some overhead protection nearby. Adding extra foxhole & trench is rather unnecessary, as once this sort of bocage position is flanked or endangered of beeing wiped out in close combat, the remaining defenders would rather retreat to the next rearward bocage fighting position.

I figured "St-Lo (7 July - 19 July 1944) American Forces in Action Series" to be a good reading about the battles around St-Lo, to be found as 3 parts download here: http://cgsc.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/compoundobject/collection/p4013coll8/id/3078/rec/2 Also browsing the online collections on this site yield many good findings about Normandy battle topics. I´d also browse this one for more excellent online material: http://www.history.army.mil/html/bookshelves/resmat/ww2eamet.html

I like this sort of "expedient constructions"! Would´ve tried myself, if I had the game yet (still play the demo). How good does it work ingame? I assume the wooden bunker loads a full squad? Beside possible problem that the AIP has no idea to use this position wisely, leaves the issue of camouflage, since the sandbags (as well as Y shaped bocage segment) are pretty treacherous to a human player. Overall looks to be a usefull approximation of the very specialized german "bocage defense". 8)

From "St-Lo (7 July - 19 July 1944) American Forces in Action Series" http://cgsc.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/compoundobject/collection/p4013coll8/id/3078/rec/2 Uploaded with ImageShack.us Uploaded with ImageShack.us Excerpt from "INFANTRY WEAPONS (Observation and persona1 experiences of the ordnance Officer, 2d infantry Division.)" "In order to illustrate these principles, I will describe several operations of the Second Infantry Division in the ETO, starting with operations in the hedgerows of Normandy, south of Omaha Beach. The German paratroops were occupying a well- organized defensive position. The front line positions were so well concealed that it was impossible to detect individual positions from as close as 25 yards to the front. The Germans had burrowed into the hedgerows in such a way that, although they could fire to the front or to the flanks, the earth of the hedgerows gave them almost complete protection from fragments of artillery or mortar shells so long as they stayed in their positions. Prolonged artillery preparations affected their nerves, but wounded few men." http://cgsc.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/singleitem/collection/p124201coll2/id/397/rec/26

The beginning of this well known (well...infamous) film series, also gives a good account of actual burst lengths for the Mg34 and 42 heavies = "Dauerfeuer" (continuous fire). 2-3 seconds minimum = 50+ rounds per burst. Compare that with CMBN burst rates.

To me it rather seems you declare the "hasty" type of entrenchments as the rule for all of the CM game series (all TOWs), not just CMBN. So it´s factually a "design decision", to focus on battle situations, where any defender simply lacked the time, to "improve" a hasty defence into a better one. "Improving positions" was rather a step by step process, where it took few hours to scrape a sufficiently deep FH, improve LOF (removing some terrain obstructions) and have basic means of camouflage applied. Depending on terrain to be defended, individual 2 men FHs could then be connected by "crouching trenches", just deep enough for individuals crouching between positions in concealment (rather than in cover). At the same time and if material is available, "construction" of "Unterschlupfe" (enlarged foxhole, with enlarged part covered) would begun. Material available: Trees, fence poles, remains of houses/barns (scavenging), horsecarts, anything doing the purpose, including just digging a sufficiently large hideout into/under appropiate terrain (bocage). Using "expedients" was the norm and much less the "ideal" of having men (+ engineers) and material well organised for the purposes and in time. Off course not each fighting position got attention for further improving, even if time and material was available. Particular important sectors and positions got priority, the more if allied artillery superiority had to be taken into account. Lethality of HE air- and treebursts were known since ??? Time factor: Few hours upto full day (night) to "construct" basic means of overhead cover, sufficient for the purpose. Basically, if a soldier is not engaged in a firefight, he can be safely assumed to be busy improving positions a further step. Doesn´t just count for a defender, but for an attacker (improving jump off/assembly positions) as well. It´s also not of concern, what germans and allies planned strategically in Normandy, as the nature of the terrain dictated the overall slow progress on tactical level. This and the "cautious" nature of most of allied attacks, gave germans almost always sufficient time to "dig in" and prepare positions at least vs. most dangerous allied weaponry (artillery & tanks). While the "ideal" would be to have all fighting positions improved with individual "dugouts", there surely would be a focus in terrain, that has lots of trees nearby, no matter if it´s just a clump of trees, an orchard or true forest, to have basic safety vs. tree bursts. Otherwise, if you can´t effectively defend a particular terrain, you´d rather spare it. That´s the case in CMBN (and all of CMX1), where defending in terrain that contains a minimal number of trees is rather suicidal, no matter if in FH or trenches, when it comes to treebursts. What counts the majority of shells falling on the enemy side of a bocage, if a single shell falling on friendly side, exploding as treeburst, kills half the defenders, due to lack of protection? And if it´s not lack of protection, it´s maybe the behaviour of soldiers not really taking "full cover", when set on "hide" in their FH/trenches? Can´t tell. In CMBN (and all of CMX1 series), it appears to be assumed, that all reconnaissance and any larger artillery preparations had been finished before the actual battle starts. This works well to a point, where an attacker is left with rather few on call artillery assets, both forces starting (less than) few hundred meters apart and with the defending forces assumed to be in an already "punished" state. That means, any defenders that survived to this point, leaving shelters/dugouts and man fighting positions to fend of the enemy ground attack. Most of CMX1 (and the few CMBN demo) "battle situations" I know, give an attacker plenty of artillery and the defender just few means to protect from it, during the course of a battle. That just due to the plain absence of basements, dugouts or covered foxholes. The defender has to endure any additional "on call" attacker artillery strike without proper cover available nearby, if one assumes there should be any. So at last it appears to me rather a balancing issue or setting the "initial situation" of a particular battle to something more realistic IMO. I keep voting for "covered" foxholes and trenches, as well as later implementation of true dugouts and basements, as option to not keep vast numbers of battle situations furtherly neglected in CMBN (and all of CMX1 series). They´re just to give additional "protection", not necessarily (underground) fighting positions, which surely are way beyond reasonable coding efforts in the foreseeable future. I could also imagine seeing abstractions, like the "sewer movement" in CMBB, where units are "loaded" invisibly into a feature not directly portrayed on the 3D battlefield. While one can maybe sell most players now, that Normandy fighting doesn´t require "hardened positions" to give a "realistic" play experience, things will surely change, when it comes to the Bulge modules and the eastern front at the latest.

Hey George, always good to see you "at work"! Maybe the late Falaise pocket battles in the area Trun - Chambois, give the right terrain and setting for this.

Technically, games using shadows for concealment FX, have shadowed areas mostly "pre rendered" and thus "marked" on the ground, or special layer map. Objects (player or NPC figures, ect.) moving within those marked spots receive concealment benefits, but without dynamic lighting, those objects yet look fully lit AFAIK. Haven´t checked latest COD, ARMA2, MOW or Steel Fury Charkov 1942 games about this yet.

..."looking pretty" me guesses. I´ve also thought about units moving or hiding in shadows, should be given extra "concealment" benefits, but with raytraced shadows/dynamic lighting this is probably impossible to code and getting to work with just single processor core support.

Personally I´d surely skip any desert TOW CMX2 module, for my lack of interest in the matter (for similar reason I puchased CMSF, but actually never played it). Before switching to the eastern front, I´d even crown the western front module series, with some the most neglected major early war fighting powers, the french in 1940! That should also include the Brits off course and ideally have the dutch and belgian forces included as well. I´d also be very interested in CM Pacific. 8) Starting any eastern front module with Bagration 1944, seems a bit odd to me. What would be the marketing strategy behind it??

I just compare to CMX1 series, as there is no other game to compare with having similar features. Graphics in CMBN is gorgeous, well...maybe with the exception of foxholes and trenches. eheh I love ARMA2 (i44 normandy mod) and Steel Fury Charkov 1942 graphics as well.

You were posting, while I was yet typing. I´d believe the figures are true, as the "static" divisions were mostly below official AT strength and lacking transports. Also the divisional AT battalion is comprised of mobile AT (Marders and Stugs) to rather provide sorts of an armored "reaction force".

I´d assume "14 Pak" to be a german infantry regiments 14th company = the organic AT company, normally comprising of 12 AT guns. Could be anything from 50mm to 75mm and 76mm (russian), or even "foreign" stuff (french, czech...).