Bulletpoint

To be fair, US rockets are prohibited in QBs because their purchase price is screwed-up and has never been fixed, so in that case I think we can blame BFC. German rockets are many times more expensive and consequently not as much of an issue.

I am no longer starting to have my doubts. I think artillery vs. buildings is nerfed.

All the rest of this post assumes the artillery is NOT fuzed for an airburst.

Given the design of artillery shells, a pointy chunk of metal weighing from 35 lbs (120mm mortar) to 97 lbs (155mm howitzer shell) it is almost guaranteed to penetrate any non-fortified roof. In fact, one could argue that it's almost as if they were DESIGNED to penetrate things like overhead cover.

I've built many a roof... In the U.S. using plywood/2 by's. I'm sure the Syrians use something more concrete...like CONCRETE. I've travelled throughout the mid-East; I am NOT a building expert, yet, I doubt any roof there is designed to stop artillery projectiles.

Am I wrong? (I am quite willing to be proven wrong. If, for example, the various regimes enforce strict building codes, a la West Germany's, in an attempt to fortify ALL civilian structures, then their roof's MAY be pretty tough. Is this so?)

Now, you may scoff at my concern over this, but wait until Normandy. Won't you be wailing when your US artillery park cannot penetrate a thatched roof over a German MG42 team. So there.

Thanks,
Ken

Gents,

Has anyone else given thought to the seeming lack of effectiveness of artillery against units inside buildings? I just got through POINT targeting a building with 105mm, GENERAL target type, MEDIUM intensity, SHORT duration. That 2 story building got hammered. Yet, only 1 enemy soldier was wounded. Yes, he was in the upper floor, as was his buddy - who remained unharmed.

This is not the first time this has happened. I like the fact that building interiors are not explicitly modelled, but if your building is taking MANY 105mm hits, fuzed to penetrate, um, wouldn't that wreak a bit more mayhem?

Like the owl and the tootsie pop; how may artillery rounds does it take to get to the center of a building? (And what happens when they do?)

I'd think a single 105mm HE round would render everyone hors de combat, if it landed in the same room/building, let alone about a dozen. The same for 120mm and 155mm rounds.

Thoughts?

Thanks,
Ken

Hi,
 
I know this topic has been perhaps discussed quite a bit on these forums.  Many threads can be found on how well/poorly CMx2 models realistic bocage terrain combat typical of France 1944..
 
Here are a few:
 
http://community.battlefront.com/topic/100779-the-unofficial-bocage-defense-thread/ (I probably could have tacked this post to that thread)
http://community.battlefront.com/topic/114392-new-bocage-for-normandy/
 
You see threads like this http://community.battlefront.com/topic/98423-fortifying-bocage-possible-let-me-show-you-a-trick/ tryingto address the "deficiency" in the CMx2 engine of depicting "dug-in bocage defenders/fortifications":  Apparently there is a perception among many players that it is an unfortunate limitation that CMx2 does not readily allow slit trenches/foxholes to be placed on one side of a hedgerow so that the defenders in them can readily trace LOS/LOF through the hedgerow to engage enemy on the otherside just like they could if they were normally positioned against the hedgerow without any entrenchment.
 
I think many players consider it a flaw in CMx2 to not allow entrenchments to be placed in bocage terrain so that it allows the dug in defenders to engage targets on the other side like this:
 

 
This is basically a fight in place entrenched position behind bocage.  Personally I too had this perception and I now realise that it was primarily based on playing the first ever Close Combat which featured exactly this type of concept.
 
I had reason to consider all this when addressing how foxholes, trenches and sandbags are/can be used tactically used in CMx2 in bocage style terrain in this thread: http://community.battlefront.com/topic/118866-tactical-use-of-foxholes-sandbags-and-trenches-cmx2/.  I also discussed a bocage map with the scenario/map maker who said  he wanted ti see how accurately CMBN models bocage fighting but it became apparent pretty quickly that the kind of dug-in fortifications that were used by the Germans so effectively in bocage terrain could not really be applied in CMx2.
 
Foxholes/slit trenches and boacge did of course co-exist together in Normandy 1944 but after some research and consideration, I think many of us may actually have the wrong perception (as exemplified above) as to exactly how they were actually used and implemented and subsequently how we expect to use them in CM.
 
First lets get some "official" references to bocage and entrenchments in France 1944.
 
These excerpts are from "Busting the Bocage: American Combined Arms Operations in France, 16 June-31 July 1944" (http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA211817)
 
"The Germans employed their direct-fire weapons to trap American infantrymen in a deadly hail of cross fire and grazing fires coming from all sides. Machine guns were the primary weapons
of the German defense. At the opposite corners of each field, the Germans emplaced heavy machine guns in positions dug into the earthen embankments of the hedgerows."
  "The Germans also implemented other measures to improve their scheme of hedgerow defenses. They habitually dug slit trenches into the hedgerow embankments to protect themselves during American artillery and mortar barrages. Furthermore, German commanders linked together their defensive positions with wire communications that allowed them to coordinate the defense of their sector."
  That is all that is really said about entrenchments in that paper and none of this refers to Germans actually using entrenchments to actually fight in from behind the bocage.  Shelter from the ever present artillery and mortar barrages appears to be the primary function and reason for their existence.     Surprisingly I have not been able to find too may photos of actual 1944 France bocage entrenchments or "bunkers" either.  Here is one, though it simply is not just a slit trench/foxhole. It's actually is occupied by US troops (with very odd camo pattern).
 

 
If anyone has any specific accounts that seem to indicate the use of bocage entrenchments used as actual fighting positions post them here for discussion.  I know there may be many references of first hand accounts that might loosely refer to tough "dug in defenders" in the context of boacge fighting in 1944.  It is clear that it might give the impression that the defenders were actually occupying entrenchments (fighting in place) when defending.  It seems more likely a reference to the entrenchments that were dug around the bocage which provided shelter during arty barrages as already outlined.
 
I know that the hedgerows in France varied in size and shape in both height and width.  There is an image floating around that claims to capture what a "typical" hedgerow looked like.  It is referenced here: http://www.lonesentry.com/normandy_lessons/
 

 
I thought it might be useful to illustrate my interpretation of what I think the majority of accounts of "dug in bocage defenders" actually were referring to.
 
From what we understand most of the bocage fighting occurred with one side taking up a crouched or standing positon up against the bocage on one side, firing over or through gaps in the bocage against an enemy some distance away on the opposite side of the bocage.  The natural cover and concealment offered to units in this deployment is evident.  Primarily, it makes disengaging from combat very easy should things get nasty.  Step away from the bocage and you almost immediately break the LOS/LOF the enemy may have on you allowing easy redeployment elsewhere along the bocage or even just complete withdrawal back to another position.
 
This would be the default type of engagement in seen in the 1944 bocage battles and CM seems to model this quite well.
 
If the order was to hold position and the enemy start dropping in an arty barrage, given there was no other nearby cover against artillery fire, I am sure many soldiers would have sought what natural protection they could get by lying flat in this ditch.
 
Lets now consider what a defender might do if they had the time to improve their defensive position along the bocage.  Given that artillery/mortar attack was probably the biggest threat facing German infantry in the bocage, it makes sense to think that they would probably first look at ways of improving their suitability against such attacks.  It seems apparent that the ditch that was already typically there was probably a good start for digging a slit trench/foxhole to shelter from artillery attack as some of the work had already been done.  You could argue that perhaps it would be/was better to simply retreat away from the bocage line all together and seek cover elsewhere. This may have been true in at least some instances where it was practical, but I am sure there were many situations where this was not only impractical but not expected by the COs.  Either way, a shelter against artillery that was literally located on the battle line was makes sense.  Of course in all cases the type of ground/soil that is being dug certainly may have been a prohibitive in some cases (too hard, roots, rocks etc) and in  some cases very easy to dig.  With a drainage ditch however you would at least think it would be somewhat softer beneath it compared to anywhere else.
 
So if we assume that was the case, then I imagine that something like this was actually what was happening  in the majority of accounts (80-90%?) you might hear that loosely refer to "German defenders dug in to the bocage":
 

 
This is not a defend in place position.  It was shelter against artillery. Typically the deeper the defender dug, the safer the shelter, it was all based on how much time was available to do so, but I think this would have been as basic as it got. This type of position could even be readily prepared even if the enemy already had LOS/LOF on the bocage itself. It still left the defender an option to withdraw from the position and still benefit from the cover afforded to them by the fact that they are on the opposite side of the bocage to the enemy.  You could imagine that in some instances troops may have tried to improve it by placing any logs or the like over the top to act as a kind of "roof"  Just by looking at this it seems a stretch to think that defenders in these trenches could/should be able to engage enemy on the other side.  Considering that the base of bocage was typically a mesh of roots, rocks and earth, just trying to bore/cutout/blast a firing slot through the 6'-10' thick bocage at essentially ground level  would have been no easy task, let alone the norm (I'm sure it was thinner in some cases).
 
Now I have heard references to more elaborate "bunker' type structures and networks in the bocage of '44, that afforded overhead protection though I don't think I have found any when I tried searching.   If they did occur, I can imagine that they were all based on expanding on what I think was the basic common entrenchment you see above.
 
Given time (something German defenders in the bocage of '44 didn't have too much of), it seems plausible that the next logical improvement that could be made to this shelter was perhaps some form of this:

 
 
This gives more of an overhead shelter from artillery fire.  I do not think digging this type of shelter out was at all easy let alone possible in some/most(?) cases.  It all depended on how deep the mesh of roots/rock extended beneath the bocage.  The photo above seems to be one of these types.
 
Given even more time to prepare (I would say perhaps a week or two or more), perhaps the next evolution of this entrenchment may have looked something like this:
 

 
The depth of course could be deeper to allow easier access through the "tunnel" that provided sheltered access to either side of the bocage but I am just illustrating the concept.  It is only when a slit trench is dug on the immediate opposite side of the bocage like this that I can realistically imagine what perhaps a defend in place dug in bocage defensive position might of looked like. You can imagine perhaps even a long trench system running along this opposite side of the bocage with perhaps a few "feeder tunnels" that safely connected them to the defensive side of the bocage to both withdraw and reinforce relatively safely.  Of course the tunnel itself would also provide shelter from any artillery attack.
 
With even more time and resources, you could imagine perhaps sandbagging the forward trench if need be or even using logs, branches and camouflage to perhaps make some kind of makeshift bunker. Perhaps this happened but again it all depended on time available, the terrain and resources available.
 
If you just dig a slit trench on the forward attacking side of the bocage without a direct avenue to withdraw to the opposite safer side of the bocage, then fighting from this position would be literally like fighting with your back up against a wall. To withdraw from or reinforce this position, the soldier would ultimately be exposed to direct fire from attackers and be required to instead pas between the opposite sides of the bocage via a break in the bocage (natural or otherwise).  I can however imagine a slit trench system on both the front and rear sides of the bocage linked by a trench that was dug at one of these breaks in the bocage.  In is worth remembering that, unlike digging on the defensive side of the bocage, digging anything on the forward side of the bocage when the enemy already have range and LOS of the bocage line would itself be a hazardous/prohibitive proposition. This reinforces perhaps why such types of entrenchment systems were probably much less common and prevalent than the original type I have illustrated.
 
I think I may of heard of instances or references to "elaborate entrenchment systems" in the bocage fighting of '44.  I would probably think it worked and evolved to be something like how I have explained.
 
So in summary, apart from perhaps these rarer, more "elaborate entrenchment systems" (which I still don't have any accurate references of or to), it appears to me that CMx2 actually is probably not really that far off in giving players the ability to simulate realistic implementation of entrenched positions in bocage,  Placing entrenchments or foxholes on the defensive side of bocage for the primary purpose of providing a local refuge against artillery and mortar fire is/was perhaps the most realistic and common role entrenchments had during the fighting in the hedgerows. If there is something lacking, it would be that you can not always place foxholes directly adjacent to a bocage because of other terrain features in proximity to the bocage.
eg.  in the case where you can't place foxholes/trench between two rows of bocage that effectively together form a lane.
 
I definitely don't think the depiction of combining both hedgerow cover, cover from an entrenched position and LOS/LOF through the hedgerow (like in the screenshot at the top and Close Combat!) is a realistic depiction of what "entrenched" bocage fighting in Normandy during 1944 was.

+1. 
 
I understand, or at least I think I do, that Battlefront is greatly constrained in the programming tasks it takes on, and that a rather tight prioritization must be maintained. I would argue, and others may disagree, that some form of terrain grid should be built into the stock game, with the ability to toggle it on and off as you suggest. The very nature of CM games and the environment in which players operate is a rather compelling argument (to me) for this. Terrain contours are a key element of gameplay. Since I'm sure there are those who just won't want it, make the default "off," with a toggle to turn it "on."
 
(This may be a historic first. I am contributing to my own thread being hijacked!)

Not sure if I understand your idea. If you want a grid for the terrain, there is a mod for that.

With a demo tape inside... it's going to be a smashing hit!

I used to think that the markers were just "what the troops believed", so when they saw a big shell dropping straight into the enemy foxhole, they would assume the enemy was wiped out and for this reason declare "all clear" - removing the contact marker.
 
Knowing it's not so makes the game much easier. Takes away much of the uncertainty.

This is a CMx2 thing and I had hoped it would get better over time, but sometime the Infantry Tac AI is so frustrating it pulls my hair out.
 
I been a player and holder of CM games from CMx1 to now my latest Black Sea.
 
I absolutely love the vehicle TAC AI even when I do not like what the crew does, it still makes sense, the vehicle become endangered and throws itself into reverse only to get hit from a previous spotted At weapon, still perfectly understandable.
 
But close combat Infantry Tac AI is what I feel lets the game down in the biggest way, I will explain some scenario and what I see and what i would prefer to see.
 
----------------------------
 
PERCEIVED ISSUE:Running, I am not sure if it is the animation or they are so very slow but when guys a running they seem to be doing it on ICE, as in lots of movement but very little forward progress, 9 time out of ten they are all on top of each other so it easy for the enemy to get multiple kills. Now the speed may be due to the amount of weight they are carrying but the speed is exactly the same in WW2 where the in very little weight factor.
 
PERCEIVED SOLUTION: What I rather see, is they move in pairs and individuals, with a more open gap between the soldiers, this way they all do not get slaughter like sheep. This could be an extra command like sprint, to get across streets, without loosing a whole 4 man team, because they are all snails without a care when moving.
 
-------------------------
 
PERCEIVED ISSUE: Assaulting from a breached corner into a house. To do this you need your 8 man squad to Quick to the breech and then the other team to runs forward into the house, this normal exposed the first team to a hail of fire as the moving into an open area (rubbled wall) which gets them killed then the team racing in like lemming charge in without fire support, goo by 8 man to to a single person with an 8 AK or SMG.
 
PERCEIVED SOLUTION: You can have a number of the team stack on the corner of the wall and support by fire, this has them less exposed, the assault team then breeches.
 
---------------------------
 
PERCEIVED ISSUE: The Breaching team in a house assault get slaughtered come in the front door, The 4 man team act stupidly regardless the distance the team is away from the door, they pile in to there death like lemmings. The enemy just needs to be a single automatic weapon guy to take down a full team. The assault team does not halt its attack, does not toss a grenade in, does not do anything but run and die. I would just like to say I hate every stuid the tac Ai does, but I am giving one example above.
 
PERCEIVED SOLUTION:
The assault team stacks at the door, so we do not have 4 separate entries spread over 10 secs. If the team suspects enemy it toss in a grenade before entry, it enters in the door the first few metres in a rush then halts and frees at the enemy it does not run all the way to the end of the house to turn around and come back to first at the enemy at the front door. It the sweeps as a team through the house and stops an fire as a team at contact.
 
-----------------------------
 
PERCEIVED ISSUE: Move and then in contact. I prefer to use move sometimes instead of hunt cause I find hunt they stopping all the time on non valid threats that not firing at them, but using move in woods is a pain. If they get ambushed in the wood, the player continues to run and get slaughtered even if it running into the fire.
 
PERCEIVED SOLUTION: If the fire is come from the front, then the move is cancelled and the TAC AI stops and returns fire, before they have to lose a man in the process and start cowering.
 
----------------------------
 
PERCEIVED ISSUES: Cowering, I understand cowering makes sense, but I see cowering out in the open, I seen a whole team cower in the woods, and continually get suppress and eventually killed cause they will not even attempt to return fire. This frustrates me more then anything.
 
PERCEIVED SOLUTION: Blind firing, not to hit the enemy but to suppress back to gain a little morale back, throwing grenades, throwing smoke if they have them. crawling away out of range. I rather this then see each individual solider die one after the other cause they will not do anything but cower.
 
 
---------------------------
 
PERCEIVED ISSUES: Hunt in single file, move in single file. All movement is is single file. This allows  for longer time to get set for contact and normally means all you guys end up cowering and picked off one by one.
 
PERCEIVED SOLUTION: Hunt when moving through woods should be in arrowhead or line formation, this would allow return fire on contact, right now it contact and then cower cause they need to run forward and the firing at the pint guy suppresses the rear guys, the time that my guys normally do better is when i am shot from the side, which they happen to be in a line formation.
 
--------------------------
 
 
 
 
 
There is many more bugbears I have of the Infantry TAC AI, but these are my major ones, and the reason I find this game frustrating. I know there is certain things I could be doing better and I am sure a lot of people will come to the defence I the TAC AI . I am not saying it is super bad, just these things could be improved on. Right now infantry without a huge amount of micro management on building assaults or any assault in general take what I would consider unnecessary losses due to it stupidity, where a normal human would do something different. I would love to see BF spend so more time on this front, rather then more vehicles etc. 

Oh right. That's perfectly ok then. God bless America.

I think this could be pretty useful for some of you !
 
http://community.battlefront.com/topic/118849-amd-gpu-try-this/

Not specifically.. but I will add some explanation re: hedgerows, just for you guys.  

Coming this weekend, Part 2 of my Rifle Platoon Leader series: Platoon Scouts
 
This post will cover:
Platoon Scouts - purpose Scouting and Platoon Movement Techniques Scouting Techniques in relation to: Close Terrain Open Terrain Scout Movement Cresting a Rise Flank Scouts Here is a small snippet from the upcoming post.  Enjoy, and watch my blog for this post either Saturday or Sunday.
 

weapon2010,
 
 
Combat Missioners? Had to happen sooner or later, I suppose. CM does, in may ways, have religious attributes, not least of which is the fervor of its adherents. There is ritual purification (hitting the toilet/head/lavatory before beginning). There are sacrifices (beer, chips, etc.) and propitiation (promises to mow lawn, clean gutters and such, plus agreeing to go to dinner with her mother) of a separate, jealous deity. Confession ("My tanks were getting shot up, and I forgot to walk the dog!") Sometimes even absolution. ("I forgive you, but you have to take me shopping and out to dinner") Neither let us forget proselytizing. We'll tell anyone who'll listen about CM. Even those who may not want to know!
 
What's that? CM missioners aren't clergy? They're not?! You say they're people who play CM? Gotta go!
 
Regards,
 
John Kettler

Bulletpoint,
 
Not exactly. Absent the opportunity to view high quality gun camera footage frame by frame, I'd be very hesitant to place much stock in parts of the narration. We can't see who was in the field or how many there were, but the pilot isn't going to go shoot up some Italian farmer plowing away. Given the amount of firing we saw, and it was a lot, it seems to me there's a distinct possibility, though not stated, infantry was caught moving in the open. Shooting up German vehicles parked practically at the house is fair game, as is bombing the house, for enemy occupation negates the prohibition. There may've been something with those other houses that was, well, off. There are distinct differences between the way civilian life looks from the air and the way military life looks. That may've been what underlay the attacks we saw. It may've been, as the movie line goes, "too quiet," therefore suspicious. There may've been intel the Germans were doing something like this, too. I can assure you, though, US pilots didn't go whizzing about shooting people and things willy nilly. All other considerations aside, every time you pulled the trigger, it activated the gun camera. The intel types and the CO went over that footage with a gimlet eye, and woe betide the pilot who blazed away and couldn't explain why. I was going to post a couple of pertinent vids, but my data rate just imploded. Can't get the vids to load at all. Not enough bandwidth, apparently.
 
Regards,
 
John Kettler

Yes.

Rifle Platoon Leader Part I - The Approach March is posted.
 
Enjoy!
 

I have started a new series of posts on the Battle Drill blog, the introduction is up now: RIFLE PLATOON LEADER
 
Starting with the Rifle Platoon I will cover the following topics:
 
RIFLE PLATOON Approach March Scouting The Attack The Defense The Pursuit The Support Platoon Role Integrating Support Teams into the Platoon Approach March section is almost completed and will be posted this weekend.  I will try to do at least one post in this series each week, followed by the supporting tactical problem scenarios.  I hope this series makes up in some way for my lack of posting content.

I've just run up against a too-sturdy-to-incapacitate wooden bunker in Road to Montebourg. Half a dozen direct hits from 75mm pack howitzers, some of which looked like they detonated inside the bunker (rather than on the roof) weren't enough to break one bunker... So I did a little test of 5 bunkers vs 5 modules of pack howitzers. 5 full loads of howitzers from Elite guns with Elite spotters (to do everything I could to narrow the sheaf), and one of the bunkers was no longer functional because it had been evactuated. The others were just fine, as were their occupants. I'd do a bigger test, but  wonder whether it's worth it: should wooden bunkers be all but impervious to 75mm arty? Concrete bunkers, I can imagine, and I can see that bunkers would be built to withstand 81mm mortars, but the impact of actual artillery seems more penetrative than even the same weight of filler out of a mortar...

Also, please note that I'm talking about the situation BEFORE any mines go off. You're walking with your mates through a field when you suddenly see a red signpost with some German words you don't really read well, but you do recognise the big drawing of a human skull - literally not a good sign.

LOL. I ran some tests, years ago. I took about a 100 tanks, dismounted their crews. Then, I ran them through sniper alley. Next, I sorted the surviving crew based on which crewmember(s) had been removed. I then remounted the crews. (Just for grins, I really, really, really want anyone to dismount 100 crews, run them around, and then try to figure out who goes where. No, there is no "tank 7/crew 7" logic.)
 
This gave me 100 tanks with various crew positions empty. Most had lost 1. Some had lost 2. A few, 3.
 
Then I put the tanks through their paces.
 
Then I repeated the test a couple dozen times starting with a new batch of 100 tanks each time.
 
The game did a very nice job, IMO, of prioritizing positions. Especially if you imagine the crew is an organic group, not robots.
 
Some tweaking may be nice in certain configurations, but I shudder at the thought of replicating that test...
 
Ken

Of these I've only played The Outlaws. It has great maps and a good story line to follow. Sadly it does fall away in the last couple of missions when the fictional Panzer IVs and even a Panther appear. It seems a shame to me that designers ignore the fact that none of these tanks were available to the Wehrmacht on the Cotentin Peninsula in June 44.

Hi all.
 
Here is what I've identified so far:
 
Courage and Fortitude-Base Game US
The Road to Montebourg- Base Game US
Devil's Decent-Base Game US Airborne
Panzer Martsch- Base Game Heer
Task Force Raff- Base Game US
A Bridge Too Close-Base Game US Airborne
Die Lezte Hoffnung- Base Game Wehrmacht
The Outlaws- Base game US Airborne
Blue and Gray-Base Game US
A Bloody Ride-Base Game Heer
In the Fields Where the Poppies Grow-Base Game US
The Scottish Corridor- Commonwealth Module British
Kampfgruppe Engel- Commonwealth Module Heer
Operation Deadstick- Commonwealth Module British Airborne
Benouville Battle -Commonwealth Module Heer
The Road to Nijmegen -Market Garden Module British
A Moment in Time- Market Garden Module Heer
 
I'm not including the training campaign. Please let me know of any others. Thanks!
 
 

It's not about the difficulty per se as I think the first one is almost equally bad and that one is an embarrassing cakewalk.

It is about there been one bottleneck that is subjected to nonsensical preplanned defensive fire, barbed wire, mines, loads of arty, defending infantry in dubious positions, ATGs in overwatch, cruddy positions for the attacker to start off from and to top it off wide open spaces on either side of this bottleneck.
In short, every effort has been made to limit the player in his options which are little more then the choice of where to drop the arty and how much meat to push through the grinder. Fun? Not for me it wasn't.

And while I certainly put it stronger then most, it is clearly not a well liked scenario. You can defend it all you want but I cannot recall a community ever disliking a scenario to this degree. That is not the sign of a scenario maker hitting the mark.

No, what the designer did was prevent the player using any other tactics apart then "once more into the breach". God forbid any of us have fun!

That it is so bitterly complained about by a community that is used to what Rune cooks up should give anyone pause. It is a turd of a scenario and I hope we do not see its like again.