BletchleyGeek

Feel free, although if you do I might not realize that you're referring to me...I have a short memory.  And I always wondered what the heck a 17-pounder was anyway...

I wonder if Honda would sell many cars if it ignored users comments about what they liked and disliked about its cars, or if only positive comments appeared on its website?

I've never quite understood why we carried on using "pounder" for a handful of guns, whilst almost everything else was designated in "inches". Hopefully someone can shed some light on this.
And thanks again to 17-pounder aka @76mm for taking my banter in good spirit.

Re: Tank MGs are too accurate
I suspect part of the "problem" is that the game does a "hit calculation" by the shooter and change the point of aim for the gun depending on whether the shooter hits/misses. On a miss the point of aim is going to be off of the target by a certain distance. Vehicle mounted MGs, when they miss, don't miss by nearly as much as tripod mounted MGs. So the chance for collateral damage is much higher. Whereas tripod mounted MGs will "miss" and just go totally wide of the entire element its firing at.
This isn't necessarily a bad interaction, but it is visually very weird because it feels like the gunner is intentionally throwing his aim to meet the calculation the game is doing. Whether its correct or not you'd have to do a fair amount of testing for. But visually it feels off which, imo, isn't something that can't be totally discarded since the game has gone 1:1. The results need to be right, but it also needs to visually look correct too.

As an aside I would really love to see MGs traverse their fire more often. They don't really seem to do it at all.


Re: Fortifications
One of the key problems I run into, and this shows up elsewhere, is that the exposure of the man really determines how survivable he is. Essentially not being hit is better than being hit with a good saving throw. Fortifications tend to increase the amount of visual exposure in most cases. Meaning that even though the men are getting good saving throws they are also taking more hits than they would be if they were just prone.
 
The most obvious example of animation/exposure causing deaths is with half-tracks. Where the men are sitting bolt upright and take far more hits than if they were hunched over in the track. Similarly men don't fire over the lip of a fortification, but do so at a full kneeling position. Often leaving much of their upper torso exposed. Its been a problem in CMx2 as far back as CM:SF where there was a store window option for buildings. Resulting into entire squads essentially lining up to be killed at the window. If there is one improvement I would like to see in CM is an increased number of positions/animations since they track so closely with lethality.

Oliver, we are in the 21st century 
https://support.microsoft.com/en-ca/help/4043921/windows-10-get-started-eye-control
It is not perfect, but relatively speaking, in the same league as upgrading from the good ole chamberpot-contents-out-the-window-every-morning arrangement to Edwardian-era toilet arrangements. 
PS: without the humour now, as a child of a sufferer of chronic arthritis who loved his computing time, these devices are a significant QOL improvement. 

@Bulletpoint made a good question, by asking whether it would be possible to abstract the impact of good tactics and what passes by battlefield leadership and command and control in a "gamified" simulation as CMx2 is. So this post is not a dismissal of @Hapless observations, which I subscribe 100%. Still, sh*t happens all the time.
One interesting data point for this discussion is the following diagram, which I found the 2nd edition of this wonderful little book I bought recently
https://www.amazon.com.au/David-Rowlands-Stress-Battle-Quantifying/dp/0244203059/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=john+curry+the+stress+of+battle&qid=1573119600&sr=8-1

For this table/summary/statistical model they used data from 29 WW2 and WW1 battles (adjusting the latter to WW2 standards), where the attacker successfully forced the defender to vacate its positions, and indirect fires were not a factor (at least a documented one). To give a sense of the temporal spread of data points used in this analysis, the battles go from the 1918 Allied counterattacks after Operation Michael, to Operation Veritable in 1945.
I would love to hear what you guys think, but the casualty estimates seem to me to be on the lower side (not by much) of what I have come to expect from playing CMx2 either against the AI in well-crafted scenarios or a human opponent that has done the work to keyhole guns and check for micro terrain providing reverse slopes etc. 
The analysis of these results led to confirm the following tactical "verities" one can find discussed in memoirs, treatises on tactics and what not
- Well placed HMGs trump rifle/LMG fires
- Tanks trump HMGs
- AT assets "suppress" tanks, enabling HMGs to do their work on the attackers
What is evident is that AFVs are king... when it comes to keep suppressed the defender. I think that CMx2 does a reasonably good impression of these relationships (and Graviteam eventually got there too), from a statistical point of view. Which is admittedly, not the most fun point of view.
 

@Bulletpoint made a good question, by asking whether it would be possible to abstract the impact of good tactics and what passes by battlefield leadership and command and control in a "gamified" simulation as CMx2 is. So this post is not a dismissal of @Hapless observations, which I subscribe 100%. Still, sh*t happens all the time.
One interesting data point for this discussion is the following diagram, which I found the 2nd edition of this wonderful little book I bought recently
https://www.amazon.com.au/David-Rowlands-Stress-Battle-Quantifying/dp/0244203059/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=john+curry+the+stress+of+battle&qid=1573119600&sr=8-1

For this table/summary/statistical model they used data from 29 WW2 and WW1 battles (adjusting the latter to WW2 standards), where the attacker successfully forced the defender to vacate its positions, and indirect fires were not a factor (at least a documented one). To give a sense of the temporal spread of data points used in this analysis, the battles go from the 1918 Allied counterattacks after Operation Michael, to Operation Veritable in 1945.
I would love to hear what you guys think, but the casualty estimates seem to me to be on the lower side (not by much) of what I have come to expect from playing CMx2 either against the AI in well-crafted scenarios or a human opponent that has done the work to keyhole guns and check for micro terrain providing reverse slopes etc. 
The analysis of these results led to confirm the following tactical "verities" one can find discussed in memoirs, treatises on tactics and what not
- Well placed HMGs trump rifle/LMG fires
- Tanks trump HMGs
- AT assets "suppress" tanks, enabling HMGs to do their work on the attackers
What is evident is that AFVs are king... when it comes to keep suppressed the defender. I think that CMx2 does a reasonably good impression of these relationships (and Graviteam eventually got there too), from a statistical point of view. Which is admittedly, not the most fun point of view.
 

@Bulletpoint made a good question, by asking whether it would be possible to abstract the impact of good tactics and what passes by battlefield leadership and command and control in a "gamified" simulation as CMx2 is. So this post is not a dismissal of @Hapless observations, which I subscribe 100%. Still, sh*t happens all the time.
One interesting data point for this discussion is the following diagram, which I found the 2nd edition of this wonderful little book I bought recently
https://www.amazon.com.au/David-Rowlands-Stress-Battle-Quantifying/dp/0244203059/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=john+curry+the+stress+of+battle&qid=1573119600&sr=8-1

For this table/summary/statistical model they used data from 29 WW2 and WW1 battles (adjusting the latter to WW2 standards), where the attacker successfully forced the defender to vacate its positions, and indirect fires were not a factor (at least a documented one). To give a sense of the temporal spread of data points used in this analysis, the battles go from the 1918 Allied counterattacks after Operation Michael, to Operation Veritable in 1945.
I would love to hear what you guys think, but the casualty estimates seem to me to be on the lower side (not by much) of what I have come to expect from playing CMx2 either against the AI in well-crafted scenarios or a human opponent that has done the work to keyhole guns and check for micro terrain providing reverse slopes etc. 
The analysis of these results led to confirm the following tactical "verities" one can find discussed in memoirs, treatises on tactics and what not
- Well placed HMGs trump rifle/LMG fires
- Tanks trump HMGs
- AT assets "suppress" tanks, enabling HMGs to do their work on the attackers
What is evident is that AFVs are king... when it comes to keep suppressed the defender. I think that CMx2 does a reasonably good impression of these relationships (and Graviteam eventually got there too), from a statistical point of view. Which is admittedly, not the most fun point of view.
 

My quick 2p: I don't have any problems with tanks in CM, I think almost all of the issues you raise have tactical solutions. Or to put it another way, don't the situations you describe imply that something has gone wrong somewhere?
 
Why are defensive positions exposed to direct fire at all, never mind direct fire from tanks? If the defensive plan is to engage in a slugfest with a superior enemy force, what is the purpose of these positions (delay, attrite, destroy, bait?) and how are they sited to achieve that purpose?
How has enemy armour advanced to infantry close assault range? Is the infantry too far forward? Are the anti-tank assets not set up effective? There are plenty of infantry tools (bazooka, PIAT, faust, shreck) capable of dealing with enemy armour- are these weapons effectively distributed or protected until they are needed?
If all friendly AT assets are gone then something has definitely gone seriously wrong! But how would the enemy know that he can operate unopposed? Where was the AT reserve?
Why are underpowered AT assets engaging overarmoured targets? If they're underpowered, what was the plan to use them effectively? Cumulative subsystem damage from non-penetrating hits isn't a trivial problem: tanks with no optics and no radios are a lot less effective.

Maybe a different angle on the issue.

Fortification issues are a different kettle of fish, but from a strictly (potentially unrealistic) gameplay perspective I would rather have ineffective or overly expensive fortifications than time consuming trench clearing operations, map spanning minefields and impenetrable walls of anti-tank obstacles.

They're underpowered if you ask me. The tank was the war's most decisive ground weapon, and there's a reason Russian Tank Armies crashing through the Fulda Gap were among the greatest fears of Western leaders until the Curtain fell owing to the fact that honestly, there wasn't much you could do to stop  a big enough horde of tanks. The Russians knew that just as well as the Germans who knew it before everyone else in 1940. 
Tanks were literally designed to defeat infantry fortifications. It is legit their most basic job which is why so many tanks were armed with nothing but a machine gun or fixed gun in a casemate. Frontline fortifications were overrun all the time by tanks and yes usually by them just bombarding the enemy position until the enemy was dead. 
Tanks have built binocular vision and radios, these are a pair of two honest to god superpowers compared to Private Timmy and his Mk1 Eyeball and outdoor voice. 
Infantry anti-tank assaults are usually described as heroic events and as a result those are the ones you hear about the most. The reason you hear about the successful ones is because you rarely hear about all the times that failed and the attacking infantry were murdered by the tank's wingman because in reality infantry close assault on armor was a suicidally dangerous thing for infantry to do before shaped charge projectors showed up. 
Most AT weapons are hard enough pressed to hit the tank they're shooting at to begin with unless it's very close to them by which point it's more than likely curtains for your Pak40 crew. Do you know how big something even the size of a Tiger looks in a sight at 500 yards or 1000 even? 
Biggest problem with tanks in CM is that they're overused. Too many scenarios have them and then further that problem by then having too many in the scenario. They're too commonly encountered in most of the games and this sort of a has a fatiguing effect on players after a while but really I think they're too easy to kill or disable in most of the games. In reality there wasn't much 99% of men in an army, armed with a rifle and spade, could do against 30 tons of cannon, machine guns and murder and everyone knew it. During and after the war it was apparent that the only thing that could stop a large enough army of tanks was...another army of tanks and if you don't believe me brew yourself up a coffee and grab some reading on the Fulda Gap and an order of battle for Group Soviet Forces Germany. 

Yeah ... nah.
Rolling barrages worked like a treat, as long as the gunners and divisional staff knew their business. Recon was vital, as it was in WWI, as well as retaining a degree of flexibility in execution, which was realised by having batterys 'superimposed' on the firing lines. That way, if a target of opportunity arose then the superimposed battery could be lifted off the barrage and given an immediate neutralisation target on the MG position ... or whatever the holdup was that just appeared. Obviously(?) good comms between the forward observers and the gun line was also crucial.
Incidentally, a rolling barrage was really resource intensive, and it wasn't really rolling. Imagine three batterys, each firing their own linear 100m long, with 100m between each line. They would all start together, then after a certain amount of time - as the friendly infantry approach the nearest line of fire - the battery ceases fire on the first line and starts again on a new fourth line 100m beyond the third line. The guns keep banging away for another 20 mins which gives the infantry time to close up on the next line, then the second battery ceases fire and switches to another linear 100m beyond the fourth line. And so on. If you want more width then add more batterys to the left and right on each line (each battery can cover about a linear about 100m long). If the enemy position is particularly strong - or if the position hasn't been recce'd very well - then add more lines in depth so that each line gets beaten up for longer. If the infantry are able to advance quickly then shorten the interval before shifting to the next line, and vice versa if the infantry are unable to move quickly then lengthen the time that the guns dwell on each line.
Examples of use in WWII are legion - Alamein is the obvious first example (although there was at least one in France in 1940, IIRC), including several by the Aussies during their 'crumbling' operation on the northern flank. There were more at Tebaga Gap, Enfidaville, Cassino, and points further north. They were also fairly common in Normandy, and Op VERITABLE opened with a famously huge one. On 11th July 1944 2nd US Infantry Div used a rolling barrage to (successfully) take Hill 192^. In fact, the break in of all of those examples were successful. Coincidence? No, not really.
 
^ LtCol Donald C. Little "Artillery support in the capture of Hill 192" Military Review vol. XXVIII No.3 March 1948 pp. 31-37 reproduced here
See also Bailey, Field artillery and firepower, multiple pages but especially p.204-206

I'd like an AI based off of this opponent. Port it over to CM-
https://kotaku.com/report-jimi-hendrix-on-acid-was-unbeatable-at-risk-1839153940

 

Hello to you too  😀  I wonder how many WITE and WITE 2.0 people are also CMRT players.

I have all 4 games.  I am curious just how replayable the scenarios and campaigns are?  As the original CMx1 had something like 6,000 user created scenarios (many of them vs AI).
I notice that there are hundreds and hundreds of QB maps supporting AI play.  How is such play.  CMx1 QBs against the AI was kind of pointless.  Is CMx2 better?
(Yes, I know PBEM.  But I don't PBEM.)
Thanks!

On one of the big night scenarios - the one featuring the 84th US Division IIRC - infantry movement was noticeably slower, and troops were getting winded up quicker, than what I am used to. Similar conditions can be found on the first Chaumont scenario.
On CMFI I fought a couple years back a big QB with similar settings - that got AAR'ed by my opponent on these forums - and I don't remember the same difficulties.

On one of the big night scenarios - the one featuring the 84th US Division IIRC - infantry movement was noticeably slower, and troops were getting winded up quicker, than what I am used to. Similar conditions can be found on the first Chaumont scenario.
On CMFI I fought a couple years back a big QB with similar settings - that got AAR'ed by my opponent on these forums - and I don't remember the same difficulties.

To be fair, the community has been very prolific and the games haven't changed as quickly as we have gone over topics. With a few distinguished exceptions, most conversations these days seem to me to be rehashing old controversies: we're in "archival" mode.
Until Battlefront shakes the sandbox with a new iteration, I don't think there's that much interesting to write about tactics and what not. IMO the last major shake up to the games came with CMFB, where the simulation was expanded to account more fully for winter fighting (EDIT: I am writing this thinking that CMFI winter simulations had to be tweaked a bit to be more convincing).

Yet, if CMx2 went to other places - such as Vietnam - I would say that there would be something to talk about, as organisation, equipment and terrain would be way different from everything else Battlefront has achieved with the CM2 games.

To be fair, the community has been very prolific and the games haven't changed as quickly as we have gone over topics. With a few distinguished exceptions, most conversations these days seem to me to be rehashing old controversies: we're in "archival" mode.
Until Battlefront shakes the sandbox with a new iteration, I don't think there's that much interesting to write about tactics and what not. IMO the last major shake up to the games came with CMFB, where the simulation was expanded to account more fully for winter fighting (EDIT: I am writing this thinking that CMFI winter simulations had to be tweaked a bit to be more convincing).

Yet, if CMx2 went to other places - such as Vietnam - I would say that there would be something to talk about, as organisation, equipment and terrain would be way different from everything else Battlefront has achieved with the CM2 games.

I don't mind having them, but I don't think that getting the TO&E right for different types of units is as easy as you suggest; just on the German side, you have Wehrmacht, SS, Fallschirmjager, Mountain troops, Luftwaffe, Panzergrenadier, Fusilier, etc. etc. all of them changing over time, both in terms of OOBs and TO&Es), then add in the umpteen Allied armies in Italy (or wherever).  MikeyD implies that it was very difficult indeed for R2V, and I have no reason to doubt him.  Based on WWII research that I've done, one of the issues is that there is a lot of conflicting information out there, and sifting out the correct (or least wrong) version can take time.  Another issue is that while it can be easy to find about 80% of the information you need, finding the remaining 20% can demand lots and lots of time...
And I'm not saying to delete formations altogether, just delete little-used things like anti-tank battalions in favor of anti-tank companies (which would be used more often), so you could still select their components. Anyway, it was just a suggestion which I seriously doubt will be adopted so I would not lose much sleep over it...

Honestly, I find it hard to understand how anyone as involved in this game as you are to say that a historical sim cannot be "too historical"?  Every game developer, especially those as small as BF, has very limited resources and must strike a constant balance between what is actually historically relevant for their games and what is not.   
For instance, has BF done thorough research about the boots of all of the combatant nations during World War II?  Is sole wear being modeled properly, and are bootlaces the right color, and fraying to the correct degree based on manufacturing procedures and raw materials?  Is boot design factored into how quickly soldiers of various nations can double-time?  Are German soldiers wearing Russian felt boots in winter, as was very common? 
And while we're at it, we should probably have historical vehicle serial numbers accurately reflected in the game, because you know, it would be historical...right?
I hope you would agree (although maybe not, based on your statement above) that these features would be instances of a historical sim being "too historical"?
As you say, historical tactical sims are BF's passion, but that does not mean that precious game development resources should wasted on irrelevant stuff.
You keep bringing up this $700 title for some reason?  Has anyone actually suggested that?  You realize that it's possible to add content to existing games, right?  And I have no problem with complex TO&E as long as it they are not the reason for holding up the release of modules for years on end.  
Command Ops has an interesting system IMO.  They have a single game engine (which they actually give away for free), and then they charge for content to run on that engine.  Obviously you'd have to get the pricing right (and I don't really see the need to give the engine away for free), but imagine the amount of time BF could save by not having to patch/update/upgrade, what, seven separate game families now?  Obviously too late for CMx2, but I hope that BF looks at alternate models for future game engines, if any.

Very true. Another example being "straggler companies" that serve no real purpose. If I'm making a scenario about a straggler company, I can just use a regular company and strip out the mortars and set equipment level to poor to get rid of some squad automatic weapons.

Yes and no...according to MikeyD, BF apparently also incurs a lot of brain damage determining OOBs and TO&Es for formations that I doubt anyone ever uses.  I was simply suggesting that they could lighten their load by focusing on the OOBs and TO&Es for the basic building blocks (platoons and companies) rather than a lot of larger formations of limited utility to anyone.  
Not sure with what my front preferences have to do with not liking it when games cover very narrow time frames and only a handful of units?  I'd feel the same way if I preferred Normandy, Battle of the Bulge, or Italy.  Three separate games covering the Western Front:  CMFB, CMFI, CMFB, and in theory, four separate games for the Eastern Front--bleh.  I have no problem with paying for additional content but want it to work together in one big sand box rather than several stand-alone silos.  For me, having an editor is not every useful if there is little to edit.  
You leave a question yourself:  why do you care that I post my opinion of the games here?  I've been playing these games and on this forum for many years, so feel free to express my opinions, and am not very concerned if they don't coincide with yours (the self-appointed "defender of the faith", I see).  Last time I checked, the purpose of discussion forums is to, well, discuss?
Finally, in my view given all of the necessary abstractions/assumptions in these (or any similar) games for vastly more important topics such as LOS, sighting, troop reactions, terrain, C&C, morale, etc etc to claim that failing to use historically accurate officers' sidearms would reduce "fidelity" or "accuracy" in any meaningful way is pedantic in the extreme , unless your aim is to create a firing range simulator.

You mean mix-and-match, like in forming kampfgruppe or task forces?  Forces were "mixed-and-matched" all the time, so I have hard time understanding what is ahistorical about that?   But if you'd prefer to "break" yourselves by fixating on the formal TO&E of units which have never, and probably will never, feature in a CM scenario, don't let me stop you, although to compare another approach to the inclusion of lightsabers is a bit rich.
Sorry, but in a game featuring up to battalions of digital soldiers in a digital environment built upon many thousands of assumptions and estimates of various degrees of accuracy, to suggest that the range and accuracy of officer sidearms can "make all the difference" is completely ludicrous.  For example, in a "historical tactical sim" I would expect that the TacAI would be vastly more important than minutia such as this, and yet it remains (and given the nature of the beast, will always remain) work in progress.

Yes, with Jimmy Rushing on vocals. I use it in one of my CM Period Music mods.

Scouts/Advance Guard/main body/rearguard (and each part replicates this formation i.e. the main body would have a scout/advance guard and rear guard within it's formation).
Scouts way up front and don't forget the flanks (to contact the enemy) followed by advance guard (but leading with it's own scouts) vehicles minimum 15s apart.
Order in column depends on terrain e.g. close terrain I'd have infantry up front, open terrain more likely tanks with a few infantry riding the tanks to act as de-facto spotters.