squish1962

Thanks for replies. I am not trying to start a huge conversation on the subject really just writing down my own observations. For me the essence of any wargame is conducting battle procedure from receiving orders all the way to plan development. I spend some time on map recce and weighing the various courses open to me after considering many factors.
I enjoy this part very much; then stepping off the start line and seeing how my initial planning stays intact. Of course it rarely does; but, then the art of adjusting plans and expectations begins. Adaption to the ever changing battlefield is the biggest challenge a leader faces at all levels. It is this challenge that all of the Battlefront titles present and I am grateful for it.
Deas Gu Cath
 
 
 
 

I realize I am late to the party but I wanted to add some real life experience to the discussion on the effectiveness of indirect fire upon dug in Infantry.
In 1986 we completely dug an infantry platoon defensive position plus company weapons det. This totalled 12 x 2 man fire trenches, Platoon HQ bunker, a mortar pit and 1 x AT trench and a M249 MG trench. We also dug all the communication trenches as well. The individual fire trenches had proper overhead protection consisting of corrugated metal (you could stick your bayonet through it) covered by 2 layers of sandbags. The HQ bunker consisted of 6inch. diameter logs covered by corrugated steel and 2 layers of sand bags.
In each trench we put 2 x target balloons. In the HQ bunker we put 3 x target balloons. The mortar pit had 2 x balloons as did the MG and AT trench for a total simulation of 33 humans.
4x 155mm Howitzers (7km distance) and 4 x 81mm Mortars (3km distance) continuously fired both impact and airburst rounds. for exactly 3 min.
Upon inspection of aftermath we found the 2 balloons of the Mortar pit gone from a direct hit. 2 other balloons were gone presumably from shrapnel. The HQ bunker took a direct hit. 29 persons survived. Although bleeding ears and an overall stunning would most certainly have occurred.
Suppression is the main purpose for both artillery/mortars and machine guns. I have heard many gamers complain that their MGs and artillery/mortars are useless because they are not very accurate...good..they are not supposed to be.

I realize I am late to the party but I wanted to add some real life experience to the discussion on the effectiveness of indirect fire upon dug in Infantry.
In 1986 we completely dug an infantry platoon defensive position plus company weapons det. This totalled 12 x 2 man fire trenches, Platoon HQ bunker, a mortar pit and 1 x AT trench and a M249 MG trench. We also dug all the communication trenches as well. The individual fire trenches had proper overhead protection consisting of corrugated metal (you could stick your bayonet through it) covered by 2 layers of sandbags. The HQ bunker consisted of 6inch. diameter logs covered by corrugated steel and 2 layers of sand bags.
In each trench we put 2 x target balloons. In the HQ bunker we put 3 x target balloons. The mortar pit had 2 x balloons as did the MG and AT trench for a total simulation of 33 humans.
4x 155mm Howitzers (7km distance) and 4 x 81mm Mortars (3km distance) continuously fired both impact and airburst rounds. for exactly 3 min.
Upon inspection of aftermath we found the 2 balloons of the Mortar pit gone from a direct hit. 2 other balloons were gone presumably from shrapnel. The HQ bunker took a direct hit. 29 persons survived. Although bleeding ears and an overall stunning would most certainly have occurred.
Suppression is the main purpose for both artillery/mortars and machine guns. I have heard many gamers complain that their MGs and artillery/mortars are useless because they are not very accurate...good..they are not supposed to be.

I don't know if this is the thread for this but I wanted to bring up one aspect of realism that many people get wrong. That is; the expectation that men and vehicles will do things the way you want them to.
Many war gamers get upset if the squad of infantry you sent forward in a wedge formation don't form an actual wedge or one of the tanks of the troop you sent forward goes left around a small hill while the other 3 go right. Or the common "One of my soldier stood up in the middle of a firefight and was killed...stupid A.I. I wish they would program the A.I. better!!!" They usually blame it on the developer 
I am happy when the A.I. do dumb things because, I hate to break it to you  but in real life Soldiers do stupid things all the time. I could write pages and pages of examples from my 25 years as an infantry soldier. It is realistic to have to deal with the frustration of things not going as planned. As a leader on the battlefield you have to deal with dumb asses all the time.
I get upset when everyone and their dog complains about these things to the game developers and they in turn waste many hours trying to program the men, planes, tanks, etc. to do things "perfectly"
This is realistic in everyday life. Can you remember telling a friend to, "Look to the right." and they look to the left? Of course you can; things like that happen all the time. No human that I know is perfect. Add stress and pressure to the situation and the seemingly "Dumb" things people do ramps up a notch or two.
Instead of blaming the game developers when things don't work as you think they should take it as a challenge to work around. I do and, quite frankly, it adds a level of realism that those "perfect" games do not.
I learned a long time ago that common sense is not that common.
 
 
 
 

I don't know if this is the thread for this but I wanted to bring up one aspect of realism that many people get wrong. That is; the expectation that men and vehicles will do things the way you want them to.
Many war gamers get upset if the squad of infantry you sent forward in a wedge formation don't form an actual wedge or one of the tanks of the troop you sent forward goes left around a small hill while the other 3 go right. Or the common "One of my soldier stood up in the middle of a firefight and was killed...stupid A.I. I wish they would program the A.I. better!!!" They usually blame it on the developer 
I am happy when the A.I. do dumb things because, I hate to break it to you  but in real life Soldiers do stupid things all the time. I could write pages and pages of examples from my 25 years as an infantry soldier. It is realistic to have to deal with the frustration of things not going as planned. As a leader on the battlefield you have to deal with dumb asses all the time.
I get upset when everyone and their dog complains about these things to the game developers and they in turn waste many hours trying to program the men, planes, tanks, etc. to do things "perfectly"
This is realistic in everyday life. Can you remember telling a friend to, "Look to the right." and they look to the left? Of course you can; things like that happen all the time. No human that I know is perfect. Add stress and pressure to the situation and the seemingly "Dumb" things people do ramps up a notch or two.
Instead of blaming the game developers when things don't work as you think they should take it as a challenge to work around. I do and, quite frankly, it adds a level of realism that those "perfect" games do not.
I learned a long time ago that common sense is not that common.
 
 
 
 

I don't know if this is the thread for this but I wanted to bring up one aspect of realism that many people get wrong. That is; the expectation that men and vehicles will do things the way you want them to.
Many war gamers get upset if the squad of infantry you sent forward in a wedge formation don't form an actual wedge or one of the tanks of the troop you sent forward goes left around a small hill while the other 3 go right. Or the common "One of my soldier stood up in the middle of a firefight and was killed...stupid A.I. I wish they would program the A.I. better!!!" They usually blame it on the developer 
I am happy when the A.I. do dumb things because, I hate to break it to you  but in real life Soldiers do stupid things all the time. I could write pages and pages of examples from my 25 years as an infantry soldier. It is realistic to have to deal with the frustration of things not going as planned. As a leader on the battlefield you have to deal with dumb asses all the time.
I get upset when everyone and their dog complains about these things to the game developers and they in turn waste many hours trying to program the men, planes, tanks, etc. to do things "perfectly"
This is realistic in everyday life. Can you remember telling a friend to, "Look to the right." and they look to the left? Of course you can; things like that happen all the time. No human that I know is perfect. Add stress and pressure to the situation and the seemingly "Dumb" things people do ramps up a notch or two.
Instead of blaming the game developers when things don't work as you think they should take it as a challenge to work around. I do and, quite frankly, it adds a level of realism that those "perfect" games do not.
I learned a long time ago that common sense is not that common.
 
 
 
 

I realize I am late to the party but I wanted to add some real life experience to the discussion on the effectiveness of indirect fire upon dug in Infantry.
In 1986 we completely dug an infantry platoon defensive position plus company weapons det. This totalled 12 x 2 man fire trenches, Platoon HQ bunker, a mortar pit and 1 x AT trench and a M249 MG trench. We also dug all the communication trenches as well. The individual fire trenches had proper overhead protection consisting of corrugated metal (you could stick your bayonet through it) covered by 2 layers of sandbags. The HQ bunker consisted of 6inch. diameter logs covered by corrugated steel and 2 layers of sand bags.
In each trench we put 2 x target balloons. In the HQ bunker we put 3 x target balloons. The mortar pit had 2 x balloons as did the MG and AT trench for a total simulation of 33 humans.
4x 155mm Howitzers (7km distance) and 4 x 81mm Mortars (3km distance) continuously fired both impact and airburst rounds. for exactly 3 min.
Upon inspection of aftermath we found the 2 balloons of the Mortar pit gone from a direct hit. 2 other balloons were gone presumably from shrapnel. The HQ bunker took a direct hit. 29 persons survived. Although bleeding ears and an overall stunning would most certainly have occurred.
Suppression is the main purpose for both artillery/mortars and machine guns. I have heard many gamers complain that their MGs and artillery/mortars are useless because they are not very accurate...good..they are not supposed to be.

I realize I am late to the party but I wanted to add some real life experience to the discussion on the effectiveness of indirect fire upon dug in Infantry.
In 1986 we completely dug an infantry platoon defensive position plus company weapons det. This totalled 12 x 2 man fire trenches, Platoon HQ bunker, a mortar pit and 1 x AT trench and a M249 MG trench. We also dug all the communication trenches as well. The individual fire trenches had proper overhead protection consisting of corrugated metal (you could stick your bayonet through it) covered by 2 layers of sandbags. The HQ bunker consisted of 6inch. diameter logs covered by corrugated steel and 2 layers of sand bags.
In each trench we put 2 x target balloons. In the HQ bunker we put 3 x target balloons. The mortar pit had 2 x balloons as did the MG and AT trench for a total simulation of 33 humans.
4x 155mm Howitzers (7km distance) and 4 x 81mm Mortars (3km distance) continuously fired both impact and airburst rounds. for exactly 3 min.
Upon inspection of aftermath we found the 2 balloons of the Mortar pit gone from a direct hit. 2 other balloons were gone presumably from shrapnel. The HQ bunker took a direct hit. 29 persons survived. Although bleeding ears and an overall stunning would most certainly have occurred.
Suppression is the main purpose for both artillery/mortars and machine guns. I have heard many gamers complain that their MGs and artillery/mortars are useless because they are not very accurate...good..they are not supposed to be.

I don't know if this is the thread for this but I wanted to bring up one aspect of realism that many people get wrong. That is; the expectation that men and vehicles will do things the way you want them to.
Many war gamers get upset if the squad of infantry you sent forward in a wedge formation don't form an actual wedge or one of the tanks of the troop you sent forward goes left around a small hill while the other 3 go right. Or the common "One of my soldier stood up in the middle of a firefight and was killed...stupid A.I. I wish they would program the A.I. better!!!" They usually blame it on the developer 
I am happy when the A.I. do dumb things because, I hate to break it to you  but in real life Soldiers do stupid things all the time. I could write pages and pages of examples from my 25 years as an infantry soldier. It is realistic to have to deal with the frustration of things not going as planned. As a leader on the battlefield you have to deal with dumb asses all the time.
I get upset when everyone and their dog complains about these things to the game developers and they in turn waste many hours trying to program the men, planes, tanks, etc. to do things "perfectly"
This is realistic in everyday life. Can you remember telling a friend to, "Look to the right." and they look to the left? Of course you can; things like that happen all the time. No human that I know is perfect. Add stress and pressure to the situation and the seemingly "Dumb" things people do ramps up a notch or two.
Instead of blaming the game developers when things don't work as you think they should take it as a challenge to work around. I do and, quite frankly, it adds a level of realism that those "perfect" games do not.
I learned a long time ago that common sense is not that common.