WynnterGreen

It's fine to disagree, and I'm interested to know why. I've laid out the reasons I hold the perspective I do very clearly, how about you provide evidence to the contrary, rather than just a contrary position. It currently takes a full minute to 180 degree turn a Pak 36 in Combat Mission, without acquiring a target or firing.. I provided a link above to reenactors, 180 degree turning, moving, 180 turning, unlimbering and loading a Pak 36 in preparation to target in thirty seconds. It currently takes four minutes in CM to do the same, there's nothing 'close to it', about it. The other video in my links above show similar things being achieved by renenactors with the Pak 38. Without any providing evidence to the contrary, your assertion that the current process is 'right on', is absolutely absurd.

Pathing is a definite issue in CM at times. But really, if Dutch Grenadier couldn't work out decent pathing plans in basically open country, it's his own fault. I think if Strachwitz had scouted the left side Objective, he'd have found no one home and could be pushing his whole refused flank reserve through the vacant town to sweep through Dutch Grenadiers half of the map towards the center by now. Anecdotally, I originally made this map for a 2v2 PBEM game. Each player took a Huge Force, for a total of 25 000 points in the field. There were split British Infantry and US Airborne sectors, vs combined SS and Heer. Like this game, the Germans refused a flank. The Airborne quickly overran the token defense in their sector and swung to collapse German center. Game over. I've just made a revised version of the map, adding new territory on the German side of the map (the same as Dutch Grendaiers in this game), and added in all the battle damage and destroyed vehicles from the first game so that we can play an Attack Scenario with the Germans trying to retake the lost Objectives. We probably wont get it started too soon though, because the same group of players are about to start a 2v2 with 40 000 points, playing on the Oosterbeek Master Map.

Womble, you seem to be unreasonably fixated with the term 'broken'. Here's the 'in context', ​FIRST ​and ONLY time I use the term in this thread prior to your​ increasingly shrill​ response: A perfectly reasonable statement given that, when given the choice, people tend to avoid using them in game. ​Nor can I see anything in the statement that implies AT Guns don't function at all. Annn​nn​nnd, here's your FIRST response: So, given that the term seems to hurt your delicate sensibilities (and ability to count), I completely retract the above statement in order to pacify the situation and issue the following redress: AT Guns are severely "gimped", "handicapped" and "unfit for purpose" as a viable option because of the completely UNREALISTIC limitations in movement speed, deployment speed, ability to move while deployed, ability to mount & dismount and concealment. Thus, peace is restored. Sadly, AT Guns clearly remain dysfunctional.

It may well be the case that reworking AT Guns are't worth the man hours it would take to fix them, that's BattleFronts call. That doesn't mean they're not 'broken'. And by 'broken' I mean, severely hampered in ways that make them a poor choice, and dysfunctional compared to their real world counterparts. I merely outlined the issues in hope that they might be addressed, the same way other obvious problems have been addressed after the community clamoured for change. You think I'm crazy to think that fixing ATGs (ie, making them more closely reflect the functionality of the real thing) will substantially improve their effectiveness? I think you're a ****** idiot if you don't think improving the key aspects outlined in the original post will make them more effective, functional and realistic.

Just added this map to GreenAsJade's Mod Warehouse. http://cmmods.greenasjade.net/mods/5108/details It's saved as Meeting Engagement for Quick Battles. Enjoy.

Keen to reply. Headed away for a long weekend.

It's an absolute given that if you change functionality you'll effect usability. How much isn't known until changes are made, and is contingent on its purpose, application and extent. So how is it that you know that fixing AT Gun functionality wont do very much at all? And, given that you have no idea what my expectations are, I'm puzzled as to how it is that you feel qualified to make statements about them? I've provided EVIDENCE that in game AT Guns are severely limited in several aspects as measured against their real world counterparts. You haven't refuted any of the evidence, you've merely made pronouncements regarding my expectations and how I've overstated the case. Try playing the ball, not the man. The current situation, in game, where it currently takes 4 minutes to perform a task undertaken in thirty seconds in real life, isn't a 'minor disadvantage'. It's significant, and it compounds with all the other unrealistic and significant limitations currently reducing the functionality of AT Guns. I'm not sure why you're being so hopelessly apologetic for something that's demonstrably dysfunctional compared to its real world equivalent. Followed by blithely skipping to the conclusion that making changes wont achieve anything substantial, all without providing a skerrick of evidence. And I'm the one talking 'rubbish'? Bravo.

If by 'good enough for Government work', you mean, 'good enough to be assigned a task, but not good enough to be useful', then you're correct. Set aside the assertion that they're not used 'properly'. You're probably right. That's down to the player. AT Guns are broken as a viable option because of the completely UNREALISTIC limitations in movement speed, deployment speed, ability to move while deployed, ability to mount & dismount and concealment. That's what's wrong with them, and that's what needs addressing. This is about unrealistic functionality, NOT unrealistic expectations of effectiveness, or misguided use.

I don't think anyone advocating for major changes to AT Guns is suggesting that they should be able to be raced all over the map like handbarrows. Fatigue should take care of how far and fast they're able to move. Terrain should take it's toll, at present it doesn't. AT guns absolutely need a major overhaul in flexibility and maneuverability to have any relevance in Combat Mission. Defense then relocation to an alternate position, as quoted by Childress, should be a viable tactical option. It isn't. Not even on a paved road with the lightest assets. At present, AT Guns are barely more than a fixed emplacement without the benefit of a roof. I'm going purely on memory here, but I seem to recall that part of the problem with fixing AT Guns was that they have to have the capacity to be mounted onto vehicles. Which has put them in a grey area as far the functionality that can be applied to them. If anyone knows more about that, I'd be interested to hear it again.

Credit where it's due. Battlefront does listen and will make changes when the weight of evidence and the community consistently points to areas in real need of improvement. The ability of MGs to suppress and kill, and the vulnerability of Half Track Gunners being two that have recently received attention. So, now to stir the pot on another issue. AT Guns. The problems as I see them; [1]. Movement Speed. Currently a limbered PAK 40 will move approximately One Action Square (8 meters) per minute, regardless of whether it's being pushed along a flat highway or up a rocky incline. The same gun, limbered, will take a full minute to make a 180 degree facing change, a feat performed by reeneactors in less than ten seconds. A smaller Pak 36 will traverse approximately 1.5 Action Squares, (12 meters) on a flat road in one minute. It still takes nearly a full minute to turn 180 degrees. For comparison, video of period and reenactment AT guns being moved. http://youtu.be/nmuY4B_W_aw At the moment an AT Guns totally unrealistic lack of maneuverability is seriously hampering them. [2] Deployment Speed In a tactical game, deployment time for AT Guns should ideally be set to the period of time it takes to go from limbered to putting it's first shot down range. In my opinion, current deployment times don't reflect any combat urgency. I'd be interested to know which sources, if any, have been used to estimate deployment times for AT Guns? Compare what currently happens in CM with the second video linked above. In Game, the Pak 36 takes approximately 1 minute to turn 180 degrees. Approximately 1 minute to travel the distance traveled by the gun in the video. Another minute turn 180 again. And 1 minute to deploy and take gunnery positions. That's four minutes to achieve what the gunners in the reenactment drill in thirty seconds. [3] Moving Deployed Guns Small and medium caliber AT Guns can, and definitely should, be able to be moved while deployed. Again it's opinion, but I believe the current limbered movement rates are a better approximation of what deployed movement rates should be. Except 'facing', which should still be significantly faster. The ability to move, albeit fairly slowly, a deployed AT Gun would greatly increase their survivability. Especially in terms of the current situation where identified AT Guns are effortlessly destroyed by direct fire from mortars, due almost entirely to its complete inability to move while deployed. [4] Mount and Dismount Likewise the lack of ability to mount and Dismount the AT Gun has hamstrung it's effectiveness and usefulness. This ability isn't as urgently needed as Movement while Deployed, or a general movement speed increase, but the ability to temporarily take cover at some point distant from the gun would greatly increase the suvivability of AT Gun crews. I think that all the issues above, and probably some I haven't outlined, have compounded to significantly reduce the usefulness of AT Guns in game. A historically common asset is often not taken at all in Combat Mission games I play, largely due to it's lack of ability to be relocated effectively or realistically. It would be great to be able to setup an AT Gun in ambush, fire down a key-holed avenue of trees, knock out a vehicle then roll the gun back into the cover of adjacent trees, or behind a nearby house. However at the moment, the Pak takes it's shot, then spends four minutes and forty seconds, hopelessly stranded on the spot 'packing up' before it can move at eight meters per minute to safety. Meanwhile the mortar teams converge to blithely rain death on the hapless gunners, who can't even duck behind a nearby bush for cover without forever abandoning their gun. I'm aware that it's easier to see the problems than fix them. However, I thought it might at least be a useful exercise to try to identify what some of the issues actually are and hear some feedback and discussion from others.

Yep, aware of double clicking, and it does nothing to address the issue of it being currently very cumbersome and difficult to quickly identify detachments in a Squad/Section. The lowest level at which double click functions is the Platoon. The symbol change I proposed is specifically targeted at helping to quickly identify dispersed Detachments with their parent Squad/Section. It would do a lot to help with unit coherency, C2 and reforming Squads, especially when there are multiple Detachments from different Squads in an area (Which I experience frequently as I always split Squads during combat).

New Floating Icon: Linked Detachments When you have a single Detachment highlighted, the other detachments from it's Section get a change in symbol allowing you to quickly identify them. As an example, the triangle added to the image below. Currently you have to sift through the Chain of Command in the Unit Info Panel. Which is an extremely cumbersome and time consuming way to reform split units, especially when you have quite a few Sections in an area all with separated Detachments. The new symbol would help with quick identification of a Sections own Detachments and therefore help greatly with unit coherency and reforming Sections. Armour Last Known Location Fire. Currently infantry units will continue to fire for a short time on a last known enemy location when contact is lost. It's a continuing frustrations that tanks (when left to their own devices) will instantly stop firing on a building full of enemy infantry as soon as they go prone or begin to cower. I'd like to see Armour fire a couple of a speculative rounds, or at least some light fire, at the last known enemy position in the same way infantry currently do. Same for Armour firing on enemy Armour that has popped smoke and reversed. A speculative round should be fired at the last known location as there's reasonable chance a hit can still be made as the enemy tank reverses away. wynnter

Here's a quick fly by of the 3.8km map: 'Other Means' I'll private message you. 'Womble' I've thought about uploading them to the repository, but to be honest, I've always found it such a messy, cumbersome place to navigate that I've never bothered putting anything there. But I should get them to the community somehow, I have a few maps I think are worth sharing. 'Los' I don't want to derail the thread, but 2v2 WEGO has been by far the best way I've experienced playing this game so far. Communicating and co-ordination with a teammate is excellent, it adds a whole new dynamic and level of realism to the game. We're currently playing a massive [14000 Points per side] game on the 3.8km map linked above. Combined German Heer and SS fighting against British Army and US Airborne sectors. It's been brilliant.

I have 2 maps, which I made for a couple of 2v2 player games that I'm playing at the moment, which I'm happy to share. One has a 3.8km front, rolling hills and forest with three towns as objectives. The other has a 2.6 km front and is bocage country.

Yeah, it seems the real anomaly in the test I ran is the number of Half Tracks Knocked Out when Unbuttoned. Over the course of the full 1000 Unbuttoned iterations 13 Half Tracks were destroyed. 0 Buttened were destroyed. OK, so the test doesn't help in relation to the current discussion. Is there agreement on what would make a good test and what records to take? I'm happy to run it to 1000 instances. When I set up the first run it was to see how many gunners and there replacements might be killed over the course of 1 minute.

AHHHH SORRY... MAJOR CORRECTION. The Numbers I provided in my previous post were for the first block of 250 Instances, NOT the full 1000. My mistake. It should read: Which means at 50 meters, 30% of the time a completely exposed Scout team is killing more men than the MG42 Gunner can from the Buttoned HT. I'll tabulate the 1000 and provide a total.

I created a firing lane and ran a test. German Half Tracks [251/1]. Each carrying a 6 man MG team. Experience Veteran Motivation Fanatical Leadership +2 At a range of 50 Meters on open ground I placed: 3 man US Scout Team Experience Veteran Motivation Fanatical Leadership +2 I ran 1000 instances with Half Track Buttoned and 1000 Unbuttoned. Results: My anecdotal appraisal of the results of this test is as follows: Unbuttoned Half Tracks suffer more casualties to vehicle crew members and non gunner passengers. But fewer casualties overall because the gunner is more likely to spot early and get the first shot off to kill / suppress the Scouts. I believe there is a MUCH higher incidence than should occur of the Half Track spotting the Scout team before the Scouts manage to spot the vehicle. Eight seconds for a Veteran Scout team looking in the direction of an enemy AFV completely in the open at 50m is WAY TOO LONG, but I think that's the spotting cycle issue. It seemed that buttoned Half Tracks were spotted by the Scouts first more regularly and there were many instances of Scout teams proceeding to repeatedly take the heads off gunners as they popped their heads up one at a time. It has been my opinion, and still is, that HT Gunners and Tank Commanders are bullet magnets. My intention is to run the test twice more with two different set ups. One with the Half Track facing a US Infantry Squad at 100m, and another facing a US M1917A1 Heavy Machine Gun at 200m

Winning at all costs is fielding twelve Fanatical Elite Tigers and Arty. Negotiating terms before a game simply sets out what's considered 'reasonable' in force allocation or play style. Agreement on such issues prior to commencement is actually the height of 'friendliness'. It seems GAJ agreed to a 50% Infantry and no Panthers or Tigers policy when playing as the Germans in his previous DAR. So he's obviously not as averse to negotiating as he seemed to indicate above. It's simply my contention that he was out maneuvered pregame by not properly negotiating terms prior to beginning this engagement. Bil played him well, agreeing in the first game on No Big Cats. Then in the second encounter, gaining access to the Elephant in exchange for a AAHT, without any other concessions at all. Well played Bil indeed. Gaj acknowledges as much in his statement regarding the game being won or lost prior to commencement. Not that it's truely lost, GAJ is still well in the game. He's just set himself a difficult task from the outset.

Gaming, yes, certainly. If you think pregame negotiation effects the outcome, then it's just as important as planning and preparation. In fact I'd argue that it's merely an aspect of good planning and preparation. Let's stick to gaming, seeing that's what this is. You've never negotiated 'house rules', amendments or pregame agreements for a game??? You made a pregame agreement to add an Elephant and AA, even if it was just to 'showcase' the new toys. You just didn't negotiate anything else. That's fine, it's your decision, but surely if it effects the outcome it's a poor one. What makes you think it has to be competitive in order to negotiate terms before beginning???? Correct, and nor should they have to. Doesn't change the fact that GAJ suspects that QB's are now won or lost in the metagame, but failed to negotiate it. Which I already said is 'fair enough', if that's what he wants to do. And; I agree with Vanir, defending is just about the toughest QB match to succeed in.

If you don't like/want to get involved in pregame negotiation, that's fair enough I suppose. But if you acknowledge that a game can be won and lost at that point, you've certainly put yourself at an unnecessary disadvantage. You might as well choose your force without looking at the map beforehand too, because you don't want to get tied up in pregame planning. I'd have thought the fact that it's DAR would have been even more reason to have good pregame stipulations. Anyway, that's hindsight now, I hope you have a chance to give as good as you get as things progress. I'll read on with interest.

Precisely. I asked you during unit purchase what force allocation restrictions had been set, and you said none, other than adding an Elephant and AA asset. HUGE mistake. Among other points of detail, I'll only play with a pregame agreement that a maximum of 33% of points can be allocated to armour. I find it makes for a better balanced and more interesting game and puts off the (in my opinion ridiculous) type of player that insists on fielding twelve Tigers and a sniper team. A good pregame agreement is absolutely critical.

+1 to the anecdotal experience that manning firing positions in a HT is suicide. They get their heads shot off instantly by small arms fire. I can understand them drawing fire, but fully exposed infantrymen along side a HT are hit less effectively. Nor do they receive the adjusted rate of fire applied to HMG as far as I can see.

I completely agree, I'd love to see on map AA fire back at air assets and have the ability to either drive off the attack, or place a shot down, or lost contact, marker over the aircraft and render it unavailable for the remainder of the game. I'm sure BF would ideally like to see something similar, but time and higher priorities etc.......

Well, aircraft are undeniably awesome and extremely effective. Maybe TOO EFFECTIVE and therefore gamey? Their ability to pin, deny movement and make accurate attacks on areas out of LOS for your ground troops makes them a major asset. I suppose it's up to you to decide what constitutes gamey or boring. I'm going from memory here, but you can set an attack template up to about 400m diameter, that's a good chunk of ground to overwatch from above. They patrol for about six to eight minutes and it takes about nine or ten minutes to call one in. If you time things right you can just about have one clock on as the last clocks off. This could be considered 'boring', I suppose, as they're so effective at bogging the enemy down that the action can grind to a halt. If it's no holds barred, Death From Above is ALL GRAVY. The other thing air assets do that artillery doesn't in the area denial role is give you positive feedback on enemy movements in areas out of LOS. If the plane strafes, then you definitely know somethings there. If there's nothing under the attack footprint during their patrol, they don't waste ammo, so the asset can be recycled without any loss in capability. Although they will strafe wrecks and KIA from time to time. If you opt against aircraft, get plenty of 'off map' mortars, a skilled FO and TRPs. Make sure you examine the map carefully. Try to figure out where staging points for enemy attacks will be. Obvious areas close to the point of assault but out of LOS. TRP the staging areas and drop 80mm mortars on 'harass' ROF at the appropriate time. This will force him to use less advantageous routes on the attack and/or restrict his ability to concentrate troops to gain a personnel and firepower advantage at favourable points of attack. Also place TRPs on any areas that look like providing significant fire base opportunities to your opponent. Dropping arty in quick time with no spotting rounds can eliminate cover fire for enemy advances. Dropping smoke onto these areas can also be an effective way of reducing covering fire.