DavidFields
-
Posts
719 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by DavidFields
-
-
10 more turns to finish La Haye. Has been like that for about 6 weeks. Will eventually finish it, with some sort of win. I agree it is a great campaign, one I will likely always remember. It has been my indoctrination into CMBN. University and La Haye made marvelous use of light changes during the scenari
Fun? That is the issue I am wrestling with.
-
This is important enough, that I am thinking that it should not just be tacked onto a thread about demo charges. I hope you will forgive me, Erwin, for using your post as a starting point.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Erwin
Am starting to consider that CMBN is akin to the ASL cardboard game series whereas CM1, (and even CMSF surprisingly) are more akin to the PanzerBlitz series.
It depends on what level of play one enjoys the most.
[End of Erwin quote]
I agree.
And it really dates you, because PanzerBlitz was before the (?more popular) Panzer Leader.
(Parenthetically, which is why this is in parentheses, I see that CM2 is noted in the Wikipedia entry as a successor to ASL)
Edit: I am going to expand on this. Though I think CMBN is excellent, hence my sig, besides the (to my eye) CMSF ports into WW2, it could risk the ASL issue of uber-complexity. From that era, everyone remembers the multiple die rolls one had to throw for the simplest of tasks--hoping or fearing for snake-eyes. In addition to being in graduate school, one of the reasons I never "got" into ASL was its mind-numbing complexity--this despite me being a chess champion, and someone who still reads math and contract law books for fun. There is an art to picking the right simplifications, and if someone told me CM2 would only be designed for company level actions or below, I would not be against it. The "scope" issue is why I have had problems with the squad splitting. Tripling the number of "counters" to move around, and, all things being equal, one should be dealing at a very much smaller (1/3) size of battle. Get down to individual soldiers, and a "big battle" would be for a single platoon to assault several houses.
Thus, I am going to assert that the success or failure of the CM2 project is not going to be primarily technical/coding, it is going to rest on the wisdom of some very important underlying assumptions. It is early, and the future in not cast.
I am, by the way, incredibly pulling for Battlefront to pull this off.
-
Am starting to consider that CMBN is akin to the ASL cardboard game series whereas CM1, (and even CMSF surprisingly) are more akin to the PanzerBlitz series.
It depends on what level of play one enjoys the most.
I agree.
And it really dates you, because PanzerBlitz was before the (?more popular) Panzer Leader.
(Parenthetically, which is why this is in parentheses, I see that CM2 is noted in the Wikipedia entry as a successor to ASL)
Edit: I am going to expand on this. Though I think CMBN is excellent, hence my sig, besides the (to my eye) CMSF ports into WW2, it could risk the ASL issue of uber-complexity. From that era, everyone remembers the multiple die rolls one had to throw for the simplest of tasks--hoping or fearing for snake-eyes. In addition to being in graduate school, one of the reasons I never "got" into ASL was its mind-numbing complexity--this despite me being a chess champion, and someone who still reads math and contract law books for fun. There is an art to picking the right simplifications, and if someone told me CM2 would only be designed for company level actions or below, I would not be against it. The "scope" issue is why I have had problems with the squad splitting. Tripling the number of "counters" to move around, and, all things being equal, one should be dealing at a very much smaller (1/3) size of battle. Get down to individual soldiers, and a "big battle" would be for a single platoon to assault several houses.
Thus, I am going to assert that the success or failure of the CM2 project is not going to be primarily technical/coding, it is going to rest on the wisdom of some very important underlying assumptions. It is early, and the future in not entirely cast.
-
On the contrary, putting myself in the shoes of the the CO and facing as many of his RL challenges as possible is why I choose to play this game: others may feel differently.
It would be a school of hard knocks lesson for the attacker foolish enough to mass his troops in obvious places like roads too far in advance of H-Hour. Sure, it may be inconvenient to have guys only form up and move to the start lines when the prep barrage is already underway, especially at night in the bocage maze with green troops, but that kind of "fun" should be available to me if I want it from a game that strives to deliver realism.
In Ramadi, I forced players to adopt wholly different (and more authentic) tactics, as it was no longer feasible to simply blast defenders out of their positions the moment they were Spotted.
If I ever get there with my le Carillon project, it is my intention to deliver a very similar "in the CO's boots"'play experience to those who enjoy such things in their gaming. If that's not your cup of tea, no problem, but I will advocate for the tweaks that I believe enhance that outcome but live with whatever BFC chooses to do.
As far as "School of Hard Knocks", as long as one indicated the difficulty, as I mentioned in the C and F campaign thread, that is great. You would not even need to mention why the scenario/campaign is tough, but to have neophytes get artillery-stomped, unwittingly, would not, I think, advance CM popularity.
-
Just make sure interdiction firedoesn't get nerfed too badly by these proposed changes. Preregistered TRPs on unseen but likely enemy concentration points such as crossroads, farms, gullies/draws, etc., was a critical element of an organized defense, especially for the Germans (who had previously owned the real estate). Many an attack or counterattack never reached its start line and absorbed heavy casualties without even contacting the enemy due to a spoiling barrage, either timed or called in by FOs based on visual or sound contact.
In some ways, I have no problem with this, from a realism standpoint.
But a "many an attack or counterattack never reached its start line, etc", is not a terribly interesting scenario to play. You sort of want, as a general game issue, to design/play the ones that did reach their start line.
Or not--this is the essence of the underlying assumptions of the simulations.
The concept I understood, is that generally the CM presentations were after the initial barrage--again, that seems to have weakened in CM2, for better or worse, one can have an opinion.
The great point that you make, LongLeftFlank, is that artillery defense was an integral part of prepared defenses. But, or course, that is what TRPs are for. One could argue that they are too expensive or rare. I think that is a good debate. Should a force designated as being on the defense have a free TRP (or more) for each artillery/mortar?
-
1.Seems right to me. With option 3 being the right one if you have fortifications. The issue is with TacAI which needs to get the pixeltruppen's heads down and keep them there.
2.No underestimation accordingly to my tests. See above - it's the behaviour of the troops which makes the kill rate high. Trenches and foxholes are ok if troops are hiding.
3.Don't agree on this one. Efficiency has nothing to do with TRPs. See my line of argumentation above.
4.Wrong again - mortars don't kill guns, they kill the troops operating the guns (HMG, ATG etc). Troops should keep the head down and wait until everything is over - the raise their heads.
5.to target behind obstructions has nothing to to with accuracy. the spotting process - which is implemented pretty well - defines accuracy. so if you do proper spotting for a fire behind an obstacle, the fire is accurate. In my experience some shots fall before the obstacle some behind. that's ok.
6.Also the first turn use of artillery has nothing to do with accuracy. It's more an issue of the level of recon you have. You fire at more or less identified targets or where you feel the enemy positions could be.
OK, Winkried, I am going to present the opinion that we agree more than disagee.
1.Glad you liked my first point.
2. I will agree that much of the problem with high casualty rates on the receiving end of mortars is with the troop behavior. I would only add the idea that there may be more ways of getting slightly covered than is exhibited in game--humans have a way of struggling to stay covered and alive--even if if means using their helmet to dig a shallow trench.
3. I'm not sure we actually disagree on this--I used "TRP" as short-hand for improvement in...something...if one has been firing, stopped, has not moved, and begins firing again.
4. I...would say, "of course", but I guess was not clear...meant effective use of the gun, so I meant the crew as the target. I guess you are saying that mortars are even overpowered in CMBN because the crew does not take appropriate cover? I don't disagree with that, my point was that mortars were the common tactical "counter" for guns.
5. I did not think one could even call in a fire mission on a place one could not see (after turn one)? My point is that one could sort of "see" or hear something falling behind a hedgerow, so fire should be allowed--but with reduced accuracy and increased dispersion. I realize, though, that this might open up some practices which are even more unrealistic than the ability never to target land behind a hedgerow which cannot be seen--so I make this point only tentatively.
6. Not sure we are meeting eye-to-eye on this, conceptually and with terminology. My understanding was that turn 1 targeting hit where you designated it hit, even if one did not have a visual of it with on-board units. If that is not "accuracy", it is something important. You don't get to do that after turn 1. Though really...now that I think about it...I am not sure why--for off-board, or on-board units who have not moved. Must be something about gameplay rather than realism, but, in my opinion, on some maps, it really puts a lot of marbles on a first turn artillery gamble.
-
While it's indeed a trivial matter for a trained WWII mortarman (and observer) to "drop a pickle in a bucket at 500m", thus allowing a light mortar to kill infantry in open holes given enough time and ammo, that assumes they know where the bucket is (i.e. the observer has the target under direct observation, relatively free of obstruction).
In those cases, the target has only 3 alternatives:
(a) kill the shooters / FOs,
(
withdraw to less readily observed terrain© dig in deeper and roof over the dugouts so that only heavy shell direct hits will kill them and the mortars cause only pinning and shock.
In hilly areas, that kind of direct observation could happen more often, and explains the particular horror of the Hurtgenwald (sitting in the bottom of a valley filled with scraggly pines, surrounded on 3 sides by enemy FOs), or numerous valleys in Italy (which is also more sparsely vegetated). In not-quite-so-radically-hilly Normandy, this also explains much of the importance ascribed to seizing / holding the various heights around Saint Lo and Caen. It also explains much of the popularity of "reverse slope" defenses which deprive the enemy FOs of the ability to look into your holes.
So the dramatic "overkill" observed in the game seems to me to derive not from some problem with the modeled accuracy or speed of the mortar teams / FOs, but from:
(1) non-moving infantry in good concealment terrain, even dug-in, are far too easy to spot with precision, at a distance. Spotting seems to be all-or-nothing; once a unit is spotted, the spotting unit invariably knows its position down to the meter. Pickle, meet bucket. Reality is of course far more tenuous; you "spotted" muzzle flashes, or a helmet bobbed up, or just sensed something moving in the direction the shooting is coming from.
(2) excessive lethality of non-direct mortar hits against dug-in or comparably covered infantry, particularly those in buildings or wooden bunkers (honestly, units in the latter should be essentially impervious to light mortar fire -- the weakness seems to be the vision slits). Suppression and shock, yes. Wounds, not so much, at least not so quickly. I have watched medium mortars breach a hedgerow in 2 minutes; that kind of demolition simply wasn't possible with ordinary frag rounds (unlike gun shells which plow into the earth before detonating).
One tweak that might help a lot is to have entrenched infantry prefer to fight (shoot and spot) prone, as opposed to sitting up so much and exposing 50% of their bodies to incoming of all kinds. They seem to "take a knee" even when their position already has a good field of fire.
Another fix would be to radically decrease the spottability of entrenchments from "vehicle" class to "infantry" class. Right now, entrenched infantry are spotted about 3x as fast as unentrenched infantry in the same terrain.
Light and medium mortar fire, or any direct fire weapon for that matter, simply shouldn't be able to clean out a concealed and dug in position so fast at combat ranges. It's a real game unbalancer.
FWIW.
Such an excellent discussion, I could have "quoted" many responses. I also substantively agree with most of what Undead Reindeer wrote--in addition to the above.
Let's go back to my thought experiment. A Spotter, with a 60mm mortar somewhere behind him (I realize it was usually a commanding officer--the 60 mm FOs in CMBN seem odd to me), sees a farm complex 400 meters away. Looks like about a platoon of enemy, and his company is going to be attacking.
He calls in mortar fire. Does this mean:
A: A linear fire plan is called in. With 20 rounds the mortar cripples two squads and the HMG. (Even conceptually, I am not sure how a linear fire plan, diagonal to the line of fire, is done.)
or.
B: The initial rounds are off target. The Spotter corrects. The enemy has thus "gone to ground", in cover or in slit trenches. The infantry is suppressed, but any wounded/kills are just lucky. The enemy can 1. flee, if of poor morale. 2. Move away, if of good command, and it is the correct tactical move, sprinting and going prone. 3. Stay put, hoping that a round did not happen to fall in anyone's lap. The objective for the mortar is to pin the enemy.
My impression, which I am willing to be corrected on, is that "B" is more like WW2.
More points:
Lots of shrapnel is not an issue if the round strikes the ground, and the enemy is below ground--even 6 inches I will assert that CMBN underestimates the ditches and other impediments in any given area. Not a criticism; a possible game-engine limitation.
One can be realistic in areas, but need to tweak things to be actually realistic. In my opinion.
1. Mortars should suppress infantry, not kill (at least, the 60mm and 2 inch. The 81 stuff is close to actual artillery). They can kill in the open, but only if TRPed (note from the above example--I would not fire all my 60mm ammo. Once ranged, I would wait for movement with my remaining ammo--thus, firing on a previous target, without moving, should be TRP accuracy. Mortars kill guns, because they are usually above ground and cannot move.)
2. Large artillery firing on a single gun should be rare. It was just not, I will assert, usual WW2 doctrine. My understanding that, from a distance, they fired at large rectangles/boxes.
3. Mortars/artillery should be able to target behind obstructions, but with lower accuracy. Think of it as a "sound contact" with the initial rounds. With the current system, if one has visual contact, one has pinpoint aim. But if no visual contact, no rounds can be launched, puts too much of a "use it or lose it" on the first turn of a hedgerow scenario. Perfect accuracy on the first turn, or perhaps never be able to use your artillery?
4. Way, way, down the list: Can we change the flat, monotone voice of the English/American comman artillery sounds. They sound, in this context, sort of creepy--Star Wars.
-
I seem to recall BFC attempting to simulate Russian 'human wave' attacks in CMBB. How did that work out? Honestly don't remember.
The Zulus seem to have had success with that tactic against the British. Once.
Worked, in my opinion, well. The morale of the units was set so low that the only way to get them to advance was to use the human wave. Then one hoped that the bulk of the attack was enough to cause success.
When it worked, it was astonishing.
When it was all one had, one did it. Just like, to my understanding, the reality of that time.
-
Well, started this thread yesterday.....lots of responses.
I want to make it clear: my interest is to help the CM2 series. I am looking forward to it progressing all the way to East Front 1941 (and then, perhaps, some one will slap together a sort-of Germany attacking Poland Mod).
If the mortars/artillery are not "right", no amount of tinkering with the modeling of Pz-IV armor issues, for example, is going to make things work.
JonS: I vote for "accurate not precise" as the standard pattern.
SBurke, I am now going to drive you, perhaps, nuts--and I have sympathy for you, but here it goes: The WW2 books are not a random data stream. People tend to write about what is unusual or atypical. Your rejoinder may be, "But what else should be go by?"
Ok, take a thought experiment:
A 60mm mortar team runs into a field in Normandy and sets up. They are wearing just cloth uniforms (It is with a jolt that I see modern soldier footage--with all the body armor). The ground has been plowed, but is relatively flat.
The FO is 100s of yards away, with a walkie-talkie the size of a shoe box. Out of visual contact, he only vaguely knows where the mortar team is--sort of back and behind him, according to his hand drawn map, if there had actually been some planning before hand. There is smoke and mist.
With binoculars, he sees a target....several hundred yards ahead, he guesses.
Query: With what accuracy is that FO going to call in the spotting round, even assuming good visibility to the target? [if I were him, I would err on going long, and we he and the mortar are using compasses to set direction? True? Can you imagine how that works if the FO and mortar are not in the same line as the target?]
And each "thump" of the mortar is not changing its baseplate orientation of the mortar in the dirt?
I have the "advantage" of never having fought Modern Warfare. In ROTC in the mid -70s, on mock attacks, calling a mock airstrike on the right hill was considered a high-five moment. [and I wanted to be the Retello, and have that suitcase size radio on my back] Mid-70s being 30 years after WW2.
CMBN is excellent. But, the mortar/artillery part...just ...does not...feel right....yet.
I think it is quite fixable--would me my egotistical response.
To argue with an expert who has 7,000 + posts, and clearly has a very extensive knowledge of WW2 source material may seem foolish, but I am willing to be the fool if it gets me/us the East Front simulation we want. I will admit that the US and Germans in Normandy in 1944 are likely the closest progenitors to current warfare. But I will argue that WW2 was not, mostly, a Modern War. Breed CMSF with CMBB, but keep Blitzkieg (I think that was the name on the original CMBB disc for the first campaign), Blitkrieg in how it plays. Unless you can show that that original simulation was grievously in error.
-
CMBN has got me rethinking what I thought I knew about WW2 mortars and artillery.
So, I googled.--so much easier than decades ago to look up stuff, but of course I don't have the grog depth to evaluate everything I find.
For example, this:
http://www.balagan.org.uk/war/ww2/snippet/artillery.htm
Looks goods. Is it good information?
My understanding of the CM series is that, for playability and enjoyment reasons, the scenarios are generally thought to begin after the initial bombardment. Yes? That seems to be relaxed a bit with CMBN (I know, CM1 had pre-planned bombardment, but I hardly remember ever using it--too scattered to usually be worth using the artillery that way). Not having the initial bombardments would mean that a smaller percentage of casualties will be from artillery than occured in real life.
It would also appear to me that the common fire plan in WW2 was neither point nor linear, but rectangular (or square). Off-board multi-tube assets would not have their tubes all aimed, usually, at one point, but be in somewhat parallel, with the result, with variability, being at least an oval. [i realize their are game-engine issues to consider]
The British in WW2, in particular, according to this one source, seemed to make very rough fire calculations, presumably helped by the fact that their rounds were going to cover a large area (sort of like what they did with Strategic bombing of cities at night). Currently in CMBN, the artillery is either on-target, and incredibly lethal, or off target, and then of minimal effect. My concept of WW2 reality was that it was usually more in between--one cranked metal knobs, with your weapon in, say, the mud, and putting HE in a big area which had the target in it. One could do pin-point missions, and it looks as though the Germans, in particular, could be quite good at it, but, at the level most of our scenarios are at, particulary when the battle is mobile, wasn't it more of a get-the-rounds-into-the-enemy-position-and-let's-not-mess-up-and-hit-our-own-people situation? In other words, information and battlefield awareness in WW2 battle situations was not like a HDTV, but more like an old black and white TV, with "snow" and "rabbit ears" you moved around with your hands.
The article also discusses the high drop-off in lethal effectiveness with even "normal" terrain, versus something like a flat street.
(It is also interesting that a 30% casualty rate was considered to be enough to "destroy" a unit)
-
Wouldn't jumping into a crater reduce your chance of being hit because you are now below the level of the ground?
Assuming of course that you are not leaving a trench or some other prepared position for the shell hole.
The issue is whether jumping into a crater just made reduces your chance of a round coming in that exact same spot because one had already landed there before.
And JonS, I hope you are deliberately mixing your Kurt Godels with your Avant Guarde play characters.
-
Hitler.
Stalin.
Just wanted to get that out of the way, because of the greater than 100% chance (given alternate universes) that they will eventually be mentioned in any thread. Monkies typing forever, or not.
Before this gets too Peng, reflecting on the original Winkelried post, are current military personel taught that jumping into a recent crater lowers their chance of getting hit?
Please, please, reassure me this is not true.
To me, a bigger game issue is this: I think any unit staying in one place for some time should be considered in a foxhole--either commanded or Tac AI. Now that scenarios are an hour, or 90-100 minutes, I would think it was SOP to take your shovel and dig until your butt does not show in any active combat situation. Same with barricading doors (only in CM are doors always unlocked?), and finding overhead protection. The automatic shallow trenches, and overhead protection, would decrease, perhaps realistically, the death mortar issue.
[Given Godel, all mathematical systems of sufficient power have paradoxes and are soft]
-
CC did the beaches in a reasonable, and interesting way. It is hard for me to understand why they ducked this in CMBN. From a marketing standpoint, it would seem to be very attractive.
Pick a few Allied squads, maybe an amphib tank, with a very thin defending line.
Can't simulate waves, and so it would not look right? Is it as simple as that?.
-
your observation is correct. there is even a application in real life which can be applied to CM: if you survived artillery shelling so far, the best cover is a shell crater since - statistically - it is pretty improbable that artillery hits the same crater in the same fire mission.
Ummm....I am afraid that this is, statistically, absolutely nonsense. The fact that a shell hit a particular place before does not change the probability that it will hit that area again. That is akin the fallacy that if someone flips a coin 10 times and got heads, the next flip has anything other than a 50/50% chance of being heads.
Indeed, with the "in the same fire mission" clause, I would think the winning plan would be to get out of the fire mission area, and thus the crater would indicate where not to be. (this does not invalidate the idea that if you were pinned in a fire mission, being in a crater is better than being on flat ground, at least as far as ground burst rounds are concerned.)
oops, I see Yankeedog made the point--and now I am going to be spending part of my evening reflecting on Winkelried's points.
If Winkelried, you effectively mean that if a fire plan is going, say, from left to right, jumping in a crater on the left means you are less likely to get hit........I will have to think about it....particularly since the person being attacked is unlikely to know the fire plan....so looking at the probability from his/her standpoint......
-
BTW, this is relevant to the pioint I was making in another thread about realism.
It's amazing how we all thought that CMx1 was realistic, yet we conducted pitched infantry battles with comparatively minor artillery influence. People expect that to still work, and say "artillery is too powerful now". But I've become less convinced of this... I think there's every possibiluty that CMBN is right and CMx1 was ... wrong! (And of course usually the truth lies in between
)GaJ
(Wodin ^^^^^^^)
I think there are two issues:
1. Is CM1 or CM2 more realistic with regard to mortars? I don't know. I do believe that CM1 was more like those games that preceeded it: CC, ASL, Squad Leader, Panzer Leader, etc. Perhaps there was an "original error" which goes back to the 60s. Perhaps CMSF/Modern Warfare has affected the thinking--though I have been told many, many times on this board that is not the case. Evidently, 70 years ago, one could put a round in a pickle jar from...some large distance, as we can do now, I have read on these boards
Under realism, there is also the issue of direct fire mortars, which I have never done, but appears to be the tactic of choice these days--realistic, usual practice in WW2?
2. What design decisions does one make to increase the fun/playability of a simulation? CM does not have us pillaging houses for food. Scenarios with Carpet Bombing would likely not be fun for the defender. And some of the recon, though this seems to be varying these days, is assumed to have been done. For the Germans, the horse transports are out of the way. The issue here is this: are mortars too deadly/accurate with regard to this issue?--given the other design issues, such as how foxholes and terrain coverage is currently handled.
I am willing to give Battlefront grace on these issues--hence my sig. There is no doubt in my mind that they care about both. Yet I struggle...with the effect of the mortars. I will be interested in what happens with the Commonwealth Module.
-
For starters mortars in CMSF aren't really all that different to their WWII equivalents, and I can't see why they couldn't achieve quite tight spreads in ideal conditions.
Is this true? I am not being contentious. There have just been so many other advances in other weapon systems that I would be surprised that a 60mm mortar is unchanged.
I am usually very impressed when I see WW2 stuff how primitive it seems to modern equipment. A WW2 jeep, for instance, --which looks like a ill-made toy-- versus a Humvee. The inside of a B17 versus any modern plane.
And when I see WW2 footage of mortars being fired, the small ones, they don't look to me like models of precision--flimsy bases and metal, with people stuffing rounds into the top and then ducking down.
Meticulously the same propellent, of the same quality, in each round? Meticulous airodynamics causing the same flight path for each round?
It always appeared to me that the rounds were really being lobbed, and that you would be lucky to hit a house from several hundred yards--indeed, you were just putting HE "down there" to keep people's heads down--killing/wounding would have been a bonus.
Unlike current mortar fire.
But, if any of you were ever under mortar fire in WW2 and can correct me........
I am even thinking about Vietnam. Could the NVA really tightly cluster a mortar barrage on Khe San, even using equipment 20 years after after WW2? I thought that early on, transport planes, which would be huge targets, would try to fly in and out, despite the enemy mortars.
As usual, I stand to be corrected by the grogs.
-
I question, without posting any data, admittedly, the accuracy of the mortars. Though there will be those that scream about the occasional inaccuracy, my instincts tell me that the mortar rounds should be much, much, more spread--a nuisance and a head's down type of weapon.
As a slightly silly thought, I think of the accuracy of golf pros with a golf ball at 200 yards, compared to these mortars. When I see results clustered around 3-4 action spots from that distance, it is hard for me to think that represents real life, WW2 reality. [ok, ok, ....I know I should stop blaming this stuff on CMSF]
-
I am still a bit disturbed by JonS's first response to the original poster. It is one thing to be frustrated by the game, it is another to name-call. (Initially, I thought maybe he knew the poster of the OP, and the OPs first name was perhaps Richard)
Infantry being able to get through wire, slowly, and with hazard if there is someone firing on them, seems immensely appropriate. This is not a CM1/CM2 issue, it seems like basic reality. Otherwise, the results are scenarios with highly, highly channeled routes--like those in C and F (ok for one Campaign, but would be tiring after awhile). Better, I think, somewhat channeled routes. The absolutes--both with wire and unbroken bocage, oddly make the scenarios like a Dungeons and Dragons dungeon crawl.
The "absolutely unable to be flanked" maps just seem odd. No worry? IRL a defense was made where one was sure of impassable terrain? Can anyone say Sedan and the Ardennes? I usually want my opponent to think that he knows where the attack is going to come from--my job would usually be to disabuse him of that certainty. If it were up to me, any infantry unit would have some probability of crossing a deep water area--they scrounged a boat, floated on a log, something. AFVs would have some probablility of crossing "impassable terrain".
It happened.
Infantry getting through wire without explosives or artillery: Impossible?
-
The German infantry Company, with supporting MG and small mortars. Throw in a Mk4.
100-200 years from now, I think that unit is what will define what the land war in WW2 was like. The were the Centurians of the time--complete with the understanding that focusing on those roman forces do an injustice to some of the forces they fought.
As to "better", I agree with Jason C, I think. People are people, so by any number of historical flukes, especially across Europe and the US, could have changed what individual person was fighting on what side of WW2, depending on whose religious group was persecuted where hundreds of years ago.
Then there are things we do not emphasize in CM because we want to have fun:
1. The germans where using horses as transports even late in the war.
2. Massive amounts of HE landing on your head sort of obviates a lot of soldier skills. You are still dead. This was not, generally, broadswords at close range.
3. There was a desperation and bitterness between the germans and the russians, in particular, that was not generally the same with other WW2 European combatants. And in that case, the russians beat the germans. Hence, given the facts, by what criteria does one judge the russian fighters as inferior? Small unit cohesion? So what? If that does not win you the war, if the ability to massively grind down you opponent into submission, and your troops willingness to do that is not a sign of a superior quality.....then I question the definition.
"On average", the russian soldier ended the war in victory. Now, if I only knew how to write "Part Deux" in russian. [Don't get me started. If the germans had never taken Sedan, and the French had stopped them and won the war, would the "German forces 'better' thread still exist? Maybe. But I would have a similar response to what I have written above]
-
During the first couple of months of the Normandy Campaign tactical air was mostly of two varieties. Either it was sent out on a preplanned strike on a previously spotted target, or was a free-roving armed reconnaissance along roads and other places where they might reasonably expect to find the enemy. During those months, cooperation with ground troops was not all that great. But by the time of the Cobra breakout, techniques had improved and ground controllers who were themselves fighter pilots were placed with the leading ground units and equipped with radios that allowed them to speak directly to the planes in the air. This greatly reduced the response time and increased the accuracy of the strikes.
Michael
Ok, so you seem to know your stuff, so I will push further:
Pre-Cobra, that was my understanding of operations.
From Cobra, were the strikes fighter/bomber or strafing missions mostly? Was there direct ground to airplane contact (I...would doubt that, but I am no expert), or through an intermediary?
I just don't see strikes being called in by FOs, IRL, on squad level targets, particularly not unless it was easy stuff in the road.
I can see calling in company level targets--farm houses, or big fields. But the concept of calling in a strafing mission in 1944 at a 10 meter target sounds unlikely--again, too Modern Warfare. Cell phones and GPS ain't there.
-
(Cemetary Hill...shudder...the key is that it looks like it should be winnable...must have tried 3 dozen times)
Only 17 turns left in La Haye.
Spectacular.
Spectacular.
The campaign, in many of the scenarios, emphasises the issue of daylight and night.
By the time you get into the town, it is pitch dark, and it is a knife fight. Burning AFVs give some illumination.
Win or lose (and I think I will win unless I have huge losses), the campaign seems to me designed like a movie, with a firm director.
It is like...oh...I can't believe I am going to use this analogy....Stravinsky and the Rites of Spring [i should google to see if that is the correct name], you like it or your don't (Wagner also comes to mind), but one is watching talent.
-
The cheap price I can live with as the Allies had air supremacy at this point in the war and during the early summer especially the airforces were tasked with a lot of interdiction etc.
My beef is how can the pilots spot the infantry so easily? I can see large numbers of troops in the open but I routinely get groups of 8-10 men as targets of strafing runs, oftentimes these men are against a hedgerow too. That doesnt 'feel' right to me.
Also I think the strafing runs are pretty damned accurate, very little dispersal, and I also would think that the line strafed - e.g. where the bullets hit - would be longer, though more spread.
CMSF accuracy misplaced into a WW2 simulation? [Then Rankorian dives into a ditch to avoid the angry strafing run from the designers]
On the other hand, if the strafing runs were not accurate, these Boards would be full of complaints about that. Nevertheless, I tend to lean on the side of CMBN seeming to have accuracy that feels too high, rather than those who complain like "How could my tank miss the enemy tank at 300 meters 3 times in a row?!" The clunky WW2 stuff--way before Toyota-like quality control--likely broke, misfired, or otherwise did not operate as designed, a lot more than we model. (Even before being hit and damaged)
On the other hand, CMBN is already very hard. And even having, say, your one AFV bog in a small scenario can kill the fun. (War being, generally, not fun, the realism of the simulation properly minimizes some aspects.)
And I will make one more (possibly ill-informed) comment about strafing infantry: I would think the troops would likely hear the plane coming, and scatter. [i know, someone is going to mention how fast the planes can be, and how quickly they can come over tree-tops. But in that case, the plane will also have fractions of a second to spot the squad, and turn toward it. And then dip then nose when you are flying that low?]
The effect, then, would be more disruption of units than death. This is actually harder to portray, I think, in the 1:1, track every projectile system of CMBN than in a more abstract representation. A squad suddenly broken up as 12 individual soldiers on 12 action points, all "cowering"? Very messy, even if realistic.
But here is a Grog question: In WW2, what percentage, in 1944, West Front, of strafing missions were FO controlled, and what percentage were "target of opportunity" strafing, usually targeting roads and convoys (hence affecting tactical movement, generally one level above CMBN scale)?
Not that I think Band of Brothers was totally realistic, but I can't think of a single WW2 movie or historical show were an FO was calling in strafing runs. Artillery, yes. Planes, no. Can anyone else?
Modern Warfare feature applied back into WW2 simulation? [Rankorian crawls from the ditch and hide behind an impenetrable tree as the Designers plane swings to make another strafing run]
-
I have seen things like that--surprised the heck out of me when my own soldiers were causualties when my arty was landing 100+ meters away. I didn't think is was airbursts, I thought it was just from fragmentation. In my experience, kneeling soldiers, even, out in the open seem very vulnerable to random bits of flying metal. Thus I find myself trying to remember to "hide" after each movement so they go prone--though that is an extra bit of micromanaging.
-
Lurking, not responding much, because we have been through this before.
I still stand by my suggestion of many threads ago: A brief note at the beginning of the Campaign, describing how difficult it will be, and even mentioning that realizing what battles should not even be fought may be an issue (which is a legitimate judgment call to put on a Campaign player) would likely solve the problem.
Given that information, the Campaign is excellent. Letting people wander in there unwittingly, particularly after a relatively easy first scenario (thus getting people emotionally invested in the Campaign) risks giving BFC a customer "rout".
withdraw to less readily observed terrain
)
Taking care of wounded - how important
in Combat Mission Battle for Normandy
Posted
I have a contrarian view of this: I find the buddy aid thing a nuisance. We are fighting a battle, and, though it may seem heartless of me (realize, however, these pixeltruppen...are..not...real), it is another thing to fuss with--maybe this is because I have been playing larger scenarios/campaigns.
Part of the issue is that we don't, I don't think, know when it is going to happen, or not happen. So pulling squads around so that, maybe, they will help someone is, again, just another distraction--particularly if there is any chance it could get someone else killed, or off-balance the attack/defense--which is also another way of saying, possibly getting someone else killed.
And, personally, as a matter of taste [prepares for incoming hand grenades], I find it too precious, too SIMS, too much Modern Warfare ethos rather than WW2.
You don't have to tell me about the great medics, and bravery, of front line WW2 troops, and what they did to try to save their buddies. But the ethos for, for example, the Allies, was to get to Berlin as quickly as possible and end the war. Thus, no, not every single soldier was so valuable. Have a few of your supposedly submergeable tanks plunge to the bottom of the sea off Normandy, drowning the crews? Oh, well...the fight continues. Today there might be a Congressional investigation with regard to possible incompetence. Then, you had to do something as bad as needlessly destroying an entire division in Italy before such scrutiny would be applied.
My job, I think, it to not let a squad/platoon/company be thoughtlessly destroyed by bad tactics. The bandaging of the wounds, like the soldiers having enough time to take a pee, or getting them lunch, I want to leave to others. Personal preference, and I value that others enjoy different parts of the simulation--I am not advocating for a CM2 change.
But to the extent that, in CM2, if affects game play and scoring, I will likely need to play more attention to it.