sburke

Thanks sorry, haven't had a chance to go through much of the thread, just the topic and the initial comments and it made me think about what I had seen on the scenarios I was testing. I just did a run through blue on blue at 250 meters with a low rough wall three times. (Again I am running 48 separate instances each test). First test I let run for 3 turns, 2nd and 3rd tests for 6 turns. In watching the first run through I started wondering if perhaps the wall as I believe you had suggested earlier would enable troops to cower and possibly recover in relative safety and that a cumulative affect would be to allow more sustained firepower until the opposing force finally broke. The second round didn't pan out that way. I then ran a 3rd round which seemed to lean towards what I thought I was seeing in the first test. There was a 50% higher casualty rate for the troops in the open. I will run this a bunch more to see if it bears out what I am beginning to suspect. A wall is not a huge advantage but if you can establish fire superiority quickly enough it can have a much larger impact as your units don't suffer as much from suppression. It is more a cumulative impact rather than an immediate effect. What I have not seen is a larger casualty rate from being behind the wall. At best the forces in the open could achieve parity. What I need to look at now is some detail. What is happening to all these squads, what is the state of suppression etc. Also as a side note, only the units behind the walls semed to be able to fire off rifle grenades. I suspect that prone units can't use them so that does present one advantage for the wall. At 250 meters though it didn't look like they were very effective. Lots of shorts. I'll try running a bunch of tests at different ranges as well to see what effect that has. Test 1 - 3 turns Squad w/o wall Squad w/ wall Dead 89 57 Wnd 98 108 Test 2 - 6 turns Squad w/o wall Squad w/ wall Dead 135 121 Wnd 119 139 Test 3 - 6 turns Squad w/o wall Squad w/ wall Dead 143 92 Wnd 144 119

I've been playing around with a couple different tests trying to understand when and how to make the best use of foxholes and how strongly unit experience and motivation influence their effectiveness. As it happens I ended up running a test using the rough stone wall with foxholes assuming the added concealment and protection of the wall would enhance the foxhole similar to placing them in a wooded area. What I found was somewhat different. I created 48 firing ranges each 250 meters by 80 meters. In each range was a regular US squad versus a German HMG team set up as follows. 2 each in foxhole behind rough wall Exp Motivation Veteran High Veteran Regular Veteran Low Veteran poor Regular High Regular Regular Regular low Regular Poor Green High Green Regular Green Low Green Poor 2 each in foxhole no wall cover Veteran High Veteran Regular Veteran Low Veteran poor Regular High Regular Regular Regular low Regular Poor Green High Green Regular Green Low Green Poor The stone wall did not make an appreciable difference. All units were spotted by GIs almost immediately and taken under fire. Veteran High morale MG units were only ones that seemed to hold their own. I have not done a blue on blue as I wasn't really looking to investigate the same issue you are looking into, but what I found seems to correspond with what you are seeing. I can try and duplicate what you are testing and run 48 iterations at a time to accumulate more data quickly. Question, do you have any stats on number of times you have run and results? I think that would contribute to pointing out what is potentially one off data versus a statistcal probability of what is going to happen. I would like to hear some input from BF to see if my perception that a wall is good cover is simply flawed to begin with. There were various threads prior about the penetrating power of WW 2 rifles and it could simply be the wall is having soldiers assume a more upright posture behind a position that offers more concealment than actual cover. That would suck. I hate getting my pixeltruppen shot. :-P

Sorry if any of my comments came off as critical in that nature. There are always going to be situations where you just have to do something that you know is sub optimal given the map/scenario conditions etc. And then there are times where you just place things wrong as I have done more than once. One of the things that for me is good about this discussion is it has motivated me to test a variety of settings that are helping me understand how different items come together. I intend to expand the testing I did earlier to see if I can't get more granular about a variety of options and will post those hopefully by the end of the weekend.

Here you go. By no means is this considered to be exhaustive or conclusive. I'd have to build a matrix of units and then document over a lot more trials than what I ran, but I think I at least have some baselines of behavior. I created a map of 15 enclosed firing ranges each about 120 meters long by 50+ meters wide. I placed a German HMG unit at one end and an American rifle platoon at the other (my intent originally was to include the effect of suppressive fire by other units, but that ended up being irrelevant). The US units were all regular typical. The German units started at regular in C2 to green, low motivation no C2. In test one all units were set to hide with covered arcs approx halfway down the field. A single US squad was set to assault in each field. All additional US units were set with short covered arcs to prevent their providing suppressive fire in this test. With the covered arc, hiding or not all German squads were overun without exception. The foxhole emplacements were spotted immediately with the MG unit and taken under fire. The firepower of a single US squad was enough to suppress before the assaulting units entered the covered arc, once suppressed they never stood a chance. There were slight variations in how quickly they were suppressed, but none managed to inflict a single casualty. In the second set of tests I removed the covered arc. The results for the regular units was dramatically different. Three out of 5 butchered the US squads. The green units however were still overwhelmed though they had varying success at inflicting some casualties on the US units. In the third set of tests I added trees to the German position for better cover and concealment. In this case all 5 regular units were able to pin down or destroy US units despite the covered arc. The green units though able to inflict more casualties all succumbed. The German positions were not spotted until after they had opened fire, but the green units did not react well to the random fire of the assaulting units and were already becoming suppressed before being spotted. In the fourth test I removed the foxholes. In this case only one German unit was able to hold off the GIs. Though still not spotted immediately, removing the protective bonus of the foxholes was definitely noticeable. Though I would not consider the results to be conclusive about foxholes and a few other items in this thread, I did find however that rarely would a unit fire before a unit entered the covered arc (only 3 cases one by a US squad that was supposed to not fire). There was no appreciable difference in spotting between hiding and non hiding units, but at 100 meters, perfect weather and billiard flat conditions the units would have had to have been blind. My conclusion is if you are fighting with green units, use a covered arc sparingly and never shorter than the distance it will take to be spotted. Once the unit is spotted it is far too easily suppressed, once suppressed if it has no other support to slow down any attackers it will simply be overrun. Foxholes should be emplaced in a position of cover. In the open they are too easily spotted and once spotted they aren't going to keep your men alive and functioning without being part of a larger defensive plan. If isolated they are a speed bump. Placed in concealment with regular infantry though, they will represent an obstacle that will require some prep fire before attempting to assault.

I'll try to answer these as I can below, but the main point is simply your energy would be better placed at developing data to prove your point or presenting situations that can duplicate the effect so folks have hard data they can see. Case in point someone just noted the purchase cost in the editor of rocket artillery. I think within 24 hours two BTs had responded. One was unsure and the other agreed it looked to be a possible error. Hardly the knee jerk reaction of an automatic no. Granted it is one incident and no case is proven either way on a single example, but from what I see the BTs take a genuine interest in discussing behavior BUT they start from their experience which is generally things work. Generally that has been my experience as well, but it is computer code there are bound to be situations where it performs unexpectedly. Those performance issues can also be exacerbated by poor placement and bad tactics by players which are going to be the first things the BTs are going to see being far more familiar with the game. It is human of them to first make sure issues are not simply being created by folks (like me) who just haven't learned the game yet. I count 39 BTs according to the credits in the manual, all of varying degrees of participation both in the forum and in time devoted to testing. Those 39 people have dealt with an avalanche of comments from "my units are trying to shoot TCs too often" to "buildings give too much cover/not enough cover, Tanks LOS/LOF through destroyed tanks/trees/intervening terrain". etc etc. These guys deserve some slack. The game is still a work in progress obviously as the really difficult items to code (foxholes and bridges for example) are still being looked at and tweaked. BFC is working on modifying the UI. Even with the variety of concerns denoted by some 20+ pages of threads, it is a damn good game. Decrying it as unplayable or in your words is just being overly melodramatic and doesn't help your credibility. Yes I get the difference, but the discussion is part of a development process. One month of citing examples of issues that then need to be vetted and prioritized for guys who already (hopefully) have full time jobs is a pretty short time frame and a bit much to expect from them. That they don't immediately respond yes to every instance brought to their attention is a good thing from my view. What you see clearly wrong in the video, I see as normal expected behavior. Tweaking the game needs to be surgical and folks are making blanket judgements that may or may not even be an issue as opposed to a perception. Yes but they also need to sort out the chaff and considering most of us have been playing this less than 30 days there is a lot of potential for chaff especially when we use examples of units not perfoming who are green. Just how much time should a BT waste on this particular item if that is the data source? I say none. They should instead go play with the bridge issue (which as I understand it is being worked on and has to do with a particular bridge model). How much is Steve being influenced by discussions going on with the beta testers is something we do not know. My general experience is as someone who joins in after he sees the intial arguments and discussion, he starts at a more balanced point further down the line. They DO know it better. Doesn't mean there aren't situations they have not seen or experienced, but many have been playing this game quite some time and know with quite a bit more detail what kind of discussions are going on within the beta forum. They also listen to coherent arguments with some data they can review that isn't obviously flawed especially if it comes from a reliable source. Because you assume that the situation presented played out BECAUSE of an error in the covered arcs or foxholes. Just because both may need some work doesn't mean this would not play out the same way again. You have overlooked contributing factors that could possibly weigh in so heavily that the potential issues with foxholes or covered arcs would actually not change this at all. Instead of arguing with flawed data, go develop some tests with good data to prove the point. I suspect none of them like hearing the game is so broken it is unplayable because it isn't true. Maybe some react more than others, but I expect most if not all get pretty disgusted with remarks like that. That they don't express that isn't a critique of those who do express their disdain for that attitude. There is also room for disagreement within the beta tester group no different than there is disagreement within the purchasing public. I also don't see an issue in that video. I see what I expect is pretty close to realistic. Again that doesn't mean there isn't an issue with various items in code, it is just not apparent that what occurs in the video is necessarily a result of anything but bad play.

You have assumed immediately that the model is wrong and the foxhole is the issue. As Steve noted in his reply, it may be a contributing factor to how things turned out or it might have nothing at all to do with it. I for one suspect even when they tweak the foxholes, these guys are still in for a world of hurt. Green troops in an exposed position under fire are just not going to be able to do what you necessarily want them to. IMHO their morale and experience is going to factor in more heavily here than whether they were able to bury their faces in the dirt. Ergo the video doesn't prove your point regardless of whether foxholes deserve some tweaking.

That my friend is what I desire to find out. I have no good answer as I can't actually tell you this hasn't worked for me, though it could very well be it has worked for me despite myself. Usually my really good moments in CM are based on my units ignoring my commands.

I am soooo happy I don't understand the Bacharach comment. Vindication of my years spent listening to the Dead. whew. The non capitilzation was deliberate. Only the denizens of the peng thread have this odd perception that their little world has earned a place as a proper noun. One would after all not capitalize playpen, crib or padded cell.

I'd have to try the same with a squad that started in better shape to validate that. I have actually used hide and covered arc to spring an ambush or more than one occasion, however not with a green unit. Maybe tonight when I don't have this ridiculous thing called work interfering I can set up a test scenario with various conditions represented. If nothing else I'd like to understand what I can expect of a unit based on it's morale/experience/c2 state.

who left the door open to the peng thread? sheesh will somebody round em up and put them back in their cage?

Yep sarcasm and continuing to bash the beta testers is helping make you a more trustworthy source for critiquing issues in the game. That has worked really well for you so far hasn't it? Endless discussion? The game has been out just over a month and altering aspects of the game in that timeframe is considered endless? This for a game that has been in development for years. Doesn't that strike you as a slightly ridiculous statement? It isn't that any of the issues you have raised with the game are necessarily wrong. It is simply you don't seem to provide anything other than anecdotal, incomplete info or just hop on the bandwagon of some other sliver of data someone else provides. This video is a case in point. Whether the foxholes, MG performance, hiding or morale/experience based behavior needs to be tweaked is not clear. However it definitely should not be based on this video. The situation here is too easily explainable given the conditions in this specific example. The last thing any of us (yourself included) need is for the game to be tweaked for things that aren't broken. Yet you are ready to use this video to show just how clearly the beta testers are wrong, lazy, incompetent and/or overly sensitive. It isn't particularly helpful or productive to make the game better. Lighten up a bit, provide some saved games that exhibit the behavior you feel is demonstrably wrong and odds are you would get a different response. If your goal is to make the game better, it is the route to get you/us there. If you are just trying to thumb your nose at the beta testers just keep up what you are doing, but don't expect to garner any respect.

Great minds... thanks for including me. Beautifulpeople.com kicked me out so my ego can use the boost. Yeah don't get me wrong, I love the infantry tactics necessary to function in the bocage, but the war of maneuver that could be represented in an Arracourt campaign just lights me up. Throw in the fog, confused night engagements etc and you have a mix guaranteed to shine in CM. Only problem is the total battle area is huge. It would need to be broken up into separate engagements. The distances involved that were mostly movement versus actual fighting make it hard to envision how to build a campaign that rewards the kind actions that Abrams and others implemented without simply replicating ambush battles. One would have to be pretty creative on the order of the Devil's descent campaign.

it isn't a unit command, you need to just move them to the same action spot and given a short time (not sure exactly how short or if there are contributing factors like state of the unit) they will merge again.

I would avoid second floors other than for initial observation. If the unit is under fire and needs to bail, it is just that much harder for them to retreat and recover. As to whether the game is modelling an old Norman farmhouse or more a generic structure without some of the added strength an old farmhouse might have I can't say. However in "No Better place to Die" Robert Murphy recounts the battle for La Fiere Manoir. The primary fighting actually takes place in the grounds around the Manoir. The Manoir itself once isolated doesn't last long. The problem with fighting from a house (and has been noted as a "problem" in other threads) is you are limited to LOS from windows etc. This does provide an advantage to an attacker as they know where your blind spots are. A side with no windows and a demolition charge and your guys are toast. Defensive positions can't be viewed in isolation. Being hold up in a house can be a bad thing if the position isn't part of a well thought out defensive arrangement.

and perhaps you could review the evidence in the same level of detail that is required of them to understand the issue before you rant about their incompetence. These guys aren't paid to either prepare the game for release nor for the time they put in to validate behavior we claim as "unrealistic' when basic stuff like the quality of the troops isn't even accounted for when citing an example of uber troops and problems with MGs and foxholes. Sheesh if the beta testers reviewed stuff at that level this game really would be unplayable.

LOL that is the portion I couldn't see on my PC. They were green? And these guys are freaking out cause their position in the open (foxhole or not) was over run. JFC I don't need uber troops to overrun green troops placed in a position unsupported in the open. I could use girl scouts. C'mon guys you need to be able to understand a little better that experience and morale have a huge impact on your troops. If they are poorly led, green or have morale issues you need to give them every advantage you can as they are very brittle. They spot poorly, cower easily and aren't going to follow your commands well. Troops of this quality need lots of support, covered positions to retreat to etc etc. I think someone owes the beta testers a bit of an apology. Probably won't get it so I'll do it for you. Beta testers- We apologize collectively when ranting about unit behavior if we haven't studied the full parameters of the engagement and made an effort to understand the tactical situation and the quality of our troops. Blaming you is just easier to do than to understand how we got our pixeltruppen butchered.

Well here is what I see watching the video, and granted all I can see is the perspective from this unit and the video is a bit blurred on my PC. It appears there is an assault order on this position and the American unit is not identified until 5 seconds into the vid. At the 9 second mark the first soldier pops up to fire on the advancing unit. 2 Seconds later another soldier pops up. When the 3rd pops up he immediately cowers denoting there is some impact of suppressive fire or this unit already has morale issues. At this point the advancing unit is now firing upon this unit and the red bar (Which I assume is an interface mod) is now indicating increasingly levels of suppression. The unit is now taking casualties and unless they have somewhere to bug out to or someone to support them, they are going down. The foxhole incidentally is in the open with no nearby cover. My experience with placing foxholes in the open is they become area fire magnets. If you don't have the unit protected with covering fire from other units then you have pretty much wasted a foxhole as these guys will get suppressed and over run. There is definitely other fire crossing the field, but from the perspective of the video you can't really tell what it is or whom it might be directed at. In short I see nothing here to justify steiners rant, the behavior does look authentic and the foxhole very possibly poorly placed. Granted that is based on very little info but if you are gonna state the game is essentially unplayable (steiners words, not necessarily Green as Jade - I don't mean to put words in your mouth GaJ) you need to provide something more than a short video of an isolated unit being overrun in an assault. Just sticking them in a foxhole doesn't mean you now have an impregnable position. I am in the midst of a pbem game with Broadsword56 in Bois de Baugin that has been bug and issue free (other than my learning curve on using the proper FO). It definitely rates the 10 of 10 the game has been given as I think broadsword will attest to as well.

Wait till they start launching cows at you then yell "run away!!"

Understood, but the point to note is you never know when you are gonna hit someone who's nerves are a little more sensitive than you'd expect. I've already shown that American predilection for insulting Monty. I think that is far enough for me. That is still in the relatively safe area of debating the merits of various commanders and it is already a touchstone on both sides.

I think I am gonna leave this one alone before I get raked over the coals like Steve did over Australia. *quietly exiting thread and not letting door slam on way out*

ROTFLMAO note to self, never get into a serious debate using an iphone and the quick post box. note to hm stanley - actually your post wasn't incoherent and I think it made your point.

or you could just buy a few jeeps/kubelwagen and go a little fence crazy with your opponent wondering are those tanks? Maskirova as the Russians would call it.

alles clare der kliene "punk" rampantone kan nichts verstehen wass wir sprechen. der est ein dumbkopf. Okay I totally apologize for butchering German. My Junior high school teacher would be mortified, but in all fairness I only took her class because she was hot and she ran the cheerleading squad.

so how was the weather when Hess parachuted into Scotland? He looks pretty good for his age, I'm expecting those estrogen tablets are having an impact.

There is a "protected" observation position short of full exposure when the TC attempts to use the .50. I have seen some maintain this position for a bit, but if the volume of fire is enough, they will drop all the way into the turret. I had one that came under ATG fire and the TC popped up to use the .50. Bad move as the following round killed him.