DavidFields

Superb clip, John Kettler. But I am perplexed. Surely that is a staged propoganda piece? Maybe that is obvious. It is great in showing how incredibly vulnerable the infantry were in that type of terrain in N. Africa. The Brixia, to me, looks like not much more effective/accurate in this clip than a grenade launcher. The short distance rounds, just in front of the advancing infantry, were done just to keep the action in the cinema screen? Does it look like that weapon, used with those soldiers, could reliably put a round into a pickle jar at even 100m?

The feel of this game is like a multi-front Barbarossa. The Whites need to make rapid gains, and cripple the Reds before the production power of the Reds saves them. It seems as thought the Reds can take huge initial losses [AH Stalingrad, and similar Board Games, one could lose almost..almost.. every Soviet unit initially, and still survive]. And one of the major issues for the Whites is having secure supply lines. If they advance too fast, without taking key towns (imagine if the Whites were outside of Moscow now, but had not taken it) they weaken, particularly with partisans getting behind their lines. Doesn't that sound familiar to those interested in WW2? Of course, germany in WW2 would have loved to have units stationed where the Whites start in this scenario.

Great read. You both are very class acts. Can anyone give me a hint on the production situation? Are the Reds still outproducing the Whites, or has that been equalized/flipped? Because if it has, though of course not really knowing the game, but it would then appear that the next turn would be crucial for the Reds--if they can't strike back to take Moscow, the Whites position becomes dominating. But if the Reds strike at Moscow, they lose Petrograd? That can't be good.

The balancing issue is a tricky one for this reason: In general, beginners are going to have more trouble as the attacker. Attacking, well, and quickly, is usually a more complex undertaking than defending. In this case, it appears as though the Whites can be generally thought of as the initial attacker--they have to do well before the Reds overproduce them, much like the WW2 German side. In this AAR, of course, we have experts. But if the White's goes on to win, that does not mean that I, or any newbe, could replicate the coordination and zest necessary. My point, I think, is to be cautious about shifting too much balance toward the Reds on the basis of a few expert AARs. My advice would be tempered a bit if the Reds early correct production and deployment decisions were so complex that a beginner would also have trouble with their defense.

JasonC: "In real life, the actual center of the smear pattern will be randomly "off" the intended point of aim. Like firing a rifle before you have zero'ed it in, if you fire the shots from a fixed rest with perfect consistency you will get a tight shot group around some aim point or other. Then, zero'ing consists of an adjustment to put the center of that tight shot group right over the bullseye. Clear enough? When firing a mortar in the field, you can't do that zero'ing step reliably. The shot to shot variation is too high, you don't get to fire too many rounds before you need to fire for effect (or the target is warned and seeks cover or moves etc). You get a bracket, don't know how far off the center of the pattern is, and fire for effect anyway." Exactly, if I am allowed to agree with JasonC. Other than firing at fixed guns--wonderful targets and the mortar is the counter, and even then we could talk about the gun crew temporarily scattering. I am going to assert: in WW2, you did not want your light mortars to be accurate, after calling in correcting fire, given the nature of the targets. This is not just doctrine, which could be incorrect, and theoretically could be changed by the player, but reality.

JK: In what time period do the Russians have better tanks than the Allies, of which they were a part? I am not going to answer for JasonC, but Shermans? What did the Western Allies have to match the KV-1 or KV-2 during that time period? And tell me (I actually don't know) when large numbers of Shermans where engaged in WW2, as opposed to Grants or Stuarts, compared to when the T-34 was deployed in mass. And are we going to put in the SU monsters--forget the T-34-85, an upgrade on a tank which was spectacular, despite crew and optics issue, but becoming obsolete in the rapid tech surge during he war--in a dual with the Shermans?

JK: "Returning to the direct lay mortar problem, I feel I should note the direct lay mortar has a perfectly legitimate responsiveness advantage over the same weapon, at the same elevation and charge, which is fired in indirect lay. Nor does the direct lay mortar gunner have to worry about orientation relative to the GTL (Gun Target Line) or axis of fire, being its origin, thus not having to consider offset angles. With the target under direct observation, there is less likelihood of inducing more MPI error while moving the MPI to the DMPI. Adding an FO/FOO to the mix, plus an FDC (Fire Direction Center) only increases the potential error budget." Re-reading these spectacular posts. They are even better the second time around. I will only add the following: yes, direct fire mortars would be more responsive, and correct fire more rapidly--avoiding another communication delay/error. But they were tremendously vulnerable. No gun shields, like some AT/IG weapons. If they are not in a prepared position (sort of a locally indirect method--where the mortar is below ground level and someone in the local group is spotting),they are above ground, making noise and smoke, with no defense. They should (not because of play-balancing, but because of the reality of placing a tube in the open an making noise is different than the other infantry) have a tremendous "spotted" bonus. That would force them, naturally and realistically, into indirect fire.

JasonC: "At unhistorically short ranges in real life, mortars in direct lay get suppressed by enemy small arms fire." Yes, it is unclear how mortars can direct fire from under 200m, as is currently modeled, without being obliterated by almost anything they are firing at. I think it is a collection of decisions that allow this to happen: rapid deployment and targeting times, plus some spotting algorithms. JasonC: "the reason why 81mm mortars and up are highly effective weapon systems is" Not glorifying anyone--I really don't--but the most effective weapon systems early war, I contend, would be the German HMG and the 81mm mortar (I also like the MkIV tank in that mix). Or, in general, the German Company. By 1944, that may not have been the case, and one could discuss this extensively, including why the change. But this issue, and the issue of the light mortars, becomes more important, I think, as the series goes to earlier years, as we are seeing with CMFI, and when we get to, I hope soon, the Baltics in 1941. As to the poster who said, in effect, maybe how the light mortars are modeled in CMFI is correct and we just need to adjust to it (I don't want to lose my Quick Reply response and look for that comment), I, respectfully, don't think so. It is possible we are going to rewrite history, and it makes me wonder what other things I thought I knew about warfare years ago is mis-fabricated through a modern lens.

Amazing how a beer commercial [can I mention the brand? And if I do, will they pay me?] can have such a general cultural effect. I prefered the show Combat.

Battlefront: "On the offensive the light mortars are designed to suppress (kill is a bonus) enemy strong points while infantry moves. Machineguns have a similar purpose, but of course the two have complimentary pros and cons. On the defensive the light mortars are used to break up enemy concentrations (staging areas, crossing dead ground), suppress the enemy's attempts to take out key defensive points, etc. Again, machineguns are used much the same way." Thank you, I thought I was going nuts. I agree 100%--which you do not really need because you are more the expert. Now, do we agree on this: CM2 currently does not quite (to be mild) reflect the quoted paragraph? If the answer is "yes, and we are working on it", I'll just take my fingers off the keyboard and refrain from commenting on the (weekly) mortar topics--hey, I see another one now to look in on. JonS "Don't forget that light mortars tend to carry very few rounds. The British 2-in (to take that as an example) has ... what is it? 15 rounds in total? Maybe 20? And most of those are smoke. The US 60mm has 30? or 50? Whatever, it's not a lot. If you start throwing those around the place speculatively, you'll quickly find yourself out of rounds, without having solved the immediate tactical problem." I like this quote a lot, also. And I would expand it to include the situation where one is targeting small quantities of infantry, unless they were extremely important. Since the small number of soldiers would likely just move if targeted, the main reason would be to deny them a specific valuable location.

I agree, and think this says the same basic conceptual point I was making. If the target is fixed, or heavily protected, light mortars would be too light for the target (other than guns). If a light mortar is firing at something, it, therefore, must be mobile. Since the AI, and humans (if there is not a clear graphic to show the spotting rounds) don't scatter appropiately, a realism problem occurs. If they did scatter appropriately, accurate mortar fire would be ineffective--after the first round, the target would be wounded or gone (deer). The appropriate mortar technique, to counter this, would be to fire over a wide area, which would at least suppress or hinder movement. [Here I could add some not-nice comment, because this seems obvious, and I am frustrated at explaining it, but I am correctly assuming that the designers are good people who really want to do this right.] Ok, Ok, I get it: light mortars could be very accurate. I didn't entirely realize that. But one uses a shotgun or an SMG, for example, for a reason. It is not that those weapons systems can't be accurate, but because they are looking for ammo spread. I guess I could snipe with an SMG, if skilled enough, but it would be an unusual use of the weapon. Same with light mortars. (I will leave others to comment on 81mm caliber and above--my feel for that is much less opinionated there.) [edit: and this matters incredibly going forward with the franchise] [Edit2: in WW2, small mortars were inherently area fire weapons--I would put that in caps, but that would be too annoying--Discuss]

And I usually found Charles to be very reliable.

Ah, akd, I see the fundamental issue. You type that "light mortars used for direct lay far ar no more or less accurate then other direct fir HE chucker in the game." But I will contend that light mortars, but doctrine, and for good reasons, did not fire "at" targets, but in an area around them. To compare light mortars to Mk-IV HE shells , or IG guns is, in my opinion, to fundamentally misunderstand this WW2 weapon system (to use modern technology--since you use "some systems" my guess is that you tend to use the modern terminology). They fired "around" targets--even, I believe, in the case of MGs and guns (MGs could be moved, and gun crews could, unlike in CM2, scatter). Making them stealth MK-IV tanks is just wrong. I agree it is not an accuracy issue (dealt with by Experience), but disagree it is not specific to light mortars--I believe there is a conceptual problem here. Do somefink!

This is what I would like to see, because I believe it to be realistic. 105 bttry with a minimum 115 area target? Sounds goood. Experience should affect how correctly the barrage actually corresponded to the aim point, but not the dispersion--because the dispersion was largely on purpose.

This all seems incredibly obvious. I can't understand why this needs to be a house rule, it should be the base coding in the engine. (Again, I tediously blame Modern Warfare people for anachronisms) Or, let me put it another way: why not implement these recommendations? For what reason not to? To the argument that one "could" do better with small mortars, I would counter with: but, generally, what was the actual use? Let the "elite" mortar crews be snipers, if one wishes. Womble: I don't disagree with the perma-target-zeroing being a problem. But that can be solved with, perhaps, a flick of a programming switch (unless there are game, or AI reasons to keep it). I, and others, are discussing more global "what was it really like to use WW2 mortars" issues. Though, to directly deal with your point, if there are "terrain saves"--which is a great idea--I think they should be stronger. [Again, understanding that being a game/simulation designer is tough, and people will scream no matter what you do]

This is where I fundamentally, and regretfully, disagree. In CM2, as in CM1, the MGs don't function realistically with sweeping fire. In CM2, the lack of micro-terrain, combined with very difficult to model human survival skills/impulses (both ameliorated in CM1 by probability hit algorithms) are causing macro problems. This is not a plea to go back, but there is a problem, hopefully solved soon. Putting restrictions/limitation/nerfing with the mortars will cause screaming. There is an important choice which will be made here.

I understand your point. But most people coming in here new to the game know that jeep explosion recons are 'gamey', but may not know how mortars operated in WW2. I put plenty of restrictions on how I play--this is for fun, it is not a job. The difference we might have is this: Could they have been used as we see them in game? If the answer is yes, then it is the old question of history versus changing history--some people want more of one, some want more of the other. I am going to assert: however accurate the individual "tree" issues with mortars, the "forrest" view on how they realisticly worked is incorrect. This is, perhaps hard to believe for some, a friendly opinion.

What a blast. Just recently bought the game--and have never played a Strategic Command game. Fired up Megiddo, just randomly. Looked a little at the manual. Played on Beginner and got a tactical victory. So much fun. Great scenario to start with. Intuitive movement and combat. Not too long. With this scenario, not a lot of MP decisions, and have a variety of units to play with. You can feel the history! Took me awhile to realize the "Lawrence of Arabia" angle, now I am charmed by it, and understand incredibly more about this WW1 theater than I knew before. Now I am fiddling with, I think, Intermediate--whatever the next level up is. I am looking at those "morale" and other numbers. How to use planes? Learn quickly to start--takes a long time to master. I keep re-running the scenario, trying different approaches. There is true gaming knowledge and magic, in my opinion, in the many tough design decisions that I see. This is a very high level synthesis of reality, brought to a game, an keeping it fun. Just a blast.

Sorry, JasonC, for agreeing so much with you. Your knowledge of this area is so much greater than mine. But there is just an overall realness that transcends book firing data. I just played the scenario where the Americans try to take down an immobilized Tiger. Fun stuff. But, at one point, I use my mortar to "sniper" a german sniper on the other hill. There is just so much wrong with that. First, the "correct" WW2 tactics, as I understand it, would be to suppress the sniper with either mortar fire or an MG. Sure, you might get lucky and get him, but mostly you would be trying to get him to "go to ground", or move. Then one would maneuver some infantry to flank and eliminate. It would even be questionable whether a mortar or MG would waste ammo and time in a fire fight to undertake the operation--it would have to be a very annoying sniper. Instead, the mortar would generally be using the mortar, with a wide area circle, to suppress the troops around the tank (not trying to pick them off, squad by squad, under the trees). My understanding of WW2 weapon relationships: MGs: created large kill fields or lanes (german heavy MG the best) Infantry: maneuver. Mortars. As a counter to MGs (usually then indirect--direct would be very risky), and guns (yum, yum). And suppression of maneuver. Heavy mortars were best against more protected troops. Light mortars were SUPPOSED to be scattered. Two rounds landing in the same place was a waste--the target was already wounded or gone. If the target was protected enough to withstand a direct round, then one really needed something heavier. AFVs: fire and maneuver, but less stealthy than infantry/MGs. Guns: killers, but fragile. Artillery: of course they were the major killer, but a scenario were forces are simply clobbered is boring (would be better handled in a higher level simulation), so in CM2 scenarios one would see the smaller units/actions. I don't think one has to exactly use WW2 tactics in a WW2 simulation: let people have their recon by jeep explosions. I don't think a WW2 simulation needs to force WW2 tactics--in CM1 snipers were used extensively as scouts. But to not be able to use WW2 tactics in a WW2 simulation is a problem. Small mortars in CM2 now: have kill areas/lanes, maneuver, do the usual mortar role directly in the open. The ability to give short fire orders just worsens things--it stretches the ammo, and mades them tiny howitzers. It can all be fun. But as a WW2 sim, it is, I respectfully opine, wrong. [this is harsher than I would like, and I know it is being looked into. I am not going to give potential solutions--my gues is that a gazillion are already being evaluated]

Thank you, sburke, I enjoy your humor. I don't doubt the will of Battlefront to do the right thing. There are the conceptual issue, and then there are the game engine issues. I can't pretend to understand the latter. And I have only a feel for the former--and it is not first-hand. One can quote books, but, speaking as a physician, there is a lot one can tell only from having been there to look at the patient. I wish we had more WW2 vets to vet the feel of CM2. Pistols, light mortars, the effectiveness of AFV crews, foxholes, MG fire (this may be the toughest), more effective cover, and details of spotting: I am looking at this as the glass 80% full, and likely to rise.

So, in WW2, it would be an anachronism (as I have accused others of being) to think squads advanced: Point ^--3 soldiers Retello (radio), leader ^--3 soldiers? [Vietnam era, from my experience, style] Changing to a bounding, overleap, on contact?

I can't believe this is still being debated. CM2 is a great game, but the small mortars are off. In a complex simulation, with so much being done well here, it is not surprising it is hard to get everything correct. It can either be fixed, or we can live with it--but the small mortars are off. Here is a question, as an example: in CM2, what weapon would you pick to hunt a deer 250 meters away? The answer, in CM2, is a light mortar (having already been fired once). But, IRL, that would be ridiculous. The first round would likely be off, scare the deer, and it would run off. IRL a squad would be the same way, unless it was in good cover, in which case it would go to ground, and a casualty would likely only occur with a direct hit on a soldier--so generally a wasteful use of rounds that it would only be attempted...for suppression. And for those who claim that a mortar shell can be fired from x meters into a pickle jar, try the same thing with a living, moving, pickle jar. Then a straffing MG would be much more effective--that then gets to the CM2 MG issues. WW2 example: Winters assaulting the artillery position on D-Day. His assault was taught, I understand, at West Point for decades. Was the combat solution "bring up the 60mm mortars?" No. My guess that is because that would have given away the element of surprise, for the poor exchange of causing very few enemy casualties. It could have resulted in the German deployment of MGs toward the direction of the mortar attack, and perhaps a German counter-attack. But in CM2? Use mortars.

I guess we could keep a thread like this on this and the CMBN board indefinitely. Is the following true or false?: In WW2, tactically the light mortars were used to suppress, and only incidently to kill. (the fact that a round could kill sometimes kill making the suppression effective) If the statement is true, mortars are overwelmingly overly effective in CM2. They are, I think, an anachronism--like having a Vietnam War simulation were most of the casualties were caused by tanks, or a WW1 simulation were the main way to capture an enemy trench is to use night-time split squad infantry attacks. I am not sure who/what to "blame" here. It could be a long list of technical game engine decisions. Or it could be (and this is where I squint and wave my cane around, pointing to those cotton-picking youngish warriors) people making decisions who are so far removed from the WW2 era that they don't quite have the correct "forrest" view. Or I could be wrong, and the mortars are correct in CM2. 40 years of (admittedly casual) interest in WW2 stuff makes me feel otherwise. Part of me thinks this will eventually be corrected, but maybe not. Maybe this will be a permanent conceptual shift. (I remember when Star Wars came out: "spaceships don't 'fly' in space", I thought. But we never went back to the much more realistic representation seen in something like 2001: Space Odyssey. Reality does not always win--particularly, as in this case, when the contemporary witnesses die off)

Very exciting. Great pictures, and historical context.

+1 I won't go into the morale issues, but the accuracy stuff is still a major problem. With so many things going right for WW2 CM2 (consider, again, the launch of CMSF), I think this is a matter of time before it is improved. But there could be, perhaps, a major game play issue: if, because of game engine issues (not being critical of anyone!) one cannot get the MGs correct, then to compensate one would markedly reduce mortar effectiveness. Yes, that would mean a "wrong" for a "wrong", and the mortar experts could make tremendous plausible points about reality. My [insignificant] vote would be to markedly increase how easily mortar teams are spotted and markedly reduce accuracy (I would also take out linear fire patterns--but perhaps I go too far). Things like this would be a very, very, high level decison. It is like looking at the armor plate width of a tank, but deciding because of some design issue (geometry, or mantle design) to tweek vulnerability up or down. If the MG/Mortar relative ability in CM2, say the Grogs, is historically correct, I will bow to that decision. And I will enjoy the simulation in all cases. But my guess is that somewhere along the way, there will be some marked changes. Then people can go back to arguing ahistoric uniform abnormalities.