Lack of Armor cover arc = game breaker

[noob]

I am an unashamed defensive nerd, i love it, especially the long range keyhole position where an AT gun or tank are positioned looking down a road with a tight cover arc and a long LOS, thus stopping the road being used by vehicles and forcing my opponent to run the gauntlet if trying to cross it, however because of the lack of an armor cover arc that tactic is now impossible, i'm currently playing a game at the moment where i had a Stug in the perfect place, looking down a road with a plus 200 yard LOS and a tight cover arc, so it was fully concentrated on anything coming up the road, my opponent ran infantry just ahead of his tank so my Stug lobbed a HE round at them that missed and hit the tank behind with no effect, then they spotted the tank and lobbed an AT round which missed, the Sherman fired back, instant hit, instant kill, with the armor cover arc i could of probably got two unanswered AP rounds off before the Sherman fired back.

Now i'm not saying my opponent deliberately ran some infantry just ahead of his Sherman to trigger any tanks or guns, but it's the obvious tactic to use to exploit the lack of an armor cover arc, which means that now one of the most important aspects of defence has been neutralised.

If a fix is not in the next patch please make it soon as i love the new CMx2 engine but i don't think my nerves can take another experience like that again, so i'm dusting off CMBB again which i never thought i would do

[Chainsaw]

Well I wouldn't call it a gamebreaker but having armor cover arc would indeed make life easier on me as well. so +1 on Noob. :cool:

[noob]

Well I wouldn't call it a gamebreaker but having armor cover arc would indeed make life easier on me as well. so +1 on Noob. :cool:

It's a game breaker for defending addicts like me, i put in a large emotional investment when playing CM, and even more so on the defence, so i'm going to have to stop playing defensive games as the situation i pointed out is too much to take anymore, which leaves me with attacking, but then i'm tempted to exploit the very thing i'm complaining about, which makes me feel guilty, so i'm going to have to go back to CMBB until the fix

[Childress]

One suspects that the tank commander would be chewed out if an enemy squad was advancing in plain view and he DIDN'T attempt to blast them to kingdom come with HE. One of the gamier aspects of the ACA is that it presupposes knowledge of the other side's force composition. Not philosophically opposed to the concept but I believe it's re-implementation might prove more complex than we realize. If present it should be triggered by unmistakable sound contacts.

[BadgerDog]

Now i'm not saying my opponent deliberately ran some infantry just ahead of his Sherman to trigger any tanks or guns, but it's the obvious tactic to use to exploit the lack of an armor cover arc, which means that now one of the most important aspects of defence has been neutralised.

That's not gaming the game ...

It's the correct tactic for tanks advancing, particularly down a defile such as a road.

The golden rule for M4 era strategy under those specific circumstances would be to lead with infantry, including screening the flanks.

In the game, I would have done exactly what you did, however maintained a tighter arc so my STUG wouldn't fire until inside that arc. I would have waited as long as I could until I saw armor, or until they opened up on me first.

Just my two cents ...

Regards,

Doug

[noob]

One suspects that the tank commander would be chewed out if an enemy squad was advancing in plain view and he DIDN'T attempt to blast them to kingdom come with HE.

Not if he'd been told to only engage targets that could threaten his AFV.

Not philosophically opposed to the concept but I believe it's re-implementation might prove more complex than we realize. If present it should be triggered by unmistakable sound contacts.

It was "the" major innovation in CMBB IMO, making the game tactically much more nuanced, and facilitating the sweetest of all tactical situations...the anti tank ambush.

[Childress]

That's not gaming the game ...

It's the correct tactic for tanks advancing, particularly down a defile such as a road.

Qualified on Sherman (M4A2E8) & Centurion

Group 3 Gunner (RCAC)

Group 2 Driver Mechanic Tracked (RCAC)

Group 2 Signaler (RCAC)

CC and Troop Leader Instructor

Regards,

Doug

Once again Mr. Armor has spoken. Let's see some credentials, big guy.

[noob]

That's not gaming the game ... In the game, I would have done exactly what you did, however maintained a tighter arc so my STUG wouldn't fire until inside that arc. I would have waited as long as I could until I saw armor, or until they opened up on me first.

My arc was concentrated on the road, it was as tight as i could get, also it was set so it's limit was the limit of the Stugs LOS down that road (250m), if i had made it shorter there was the chance it would not fire at the Sherman until the Sherman fired at it, however your post has given me an idea to test, i'm going to recreate the situation and pull in the cover arc and see if the Stug will ignore the infantry but engage the tank even if the tank is not in the arc, it would be interesting to see if the tank commanders fear of being knocked out overides the arc order.

[Chainsaw]

Childress: It's normal sense to screen your tanks with infantry. And it was that back in WW2 to! Especially after 43-44 when the Pzfaust, Bazooka and PIATs became standard. Tanks are good as support and pack a punch, but they are really blind against dug in A/tk guns and small tank hunter teams. Infantry are vulnerable but better on spotting.

So it's not like it's gamey to screen the tanks with infantry, that is to comply with period tactics.

[Childress]

Childress:

So it's not like it's gamey to screen the tanks with infantry, that is to comply with period tactics.

You're right but are misquoting. Never said that. My point was that the defender doesn't always KNOW that the enemy has armor. In a CMBN scenario he normally does.

If putting in an ACA was that simple and didn't produce undesirable side effects or confuse the AI Battlefront would have added it. They've already done it. I'd like to have the option but one suspects it's not that simple. Patience....

[BadgerDog]

.... however your post has given me an idea to test, i'm going to recreate the situation and pull in the cover arc and see if the Stug will ignore the infantry but engage the tank even if the tank is not in the arc, it would be interesting to see if the tank commanders fear of being knocked out overides the arc order.

Sorry, I didn't say it well, but that's what I meant. I would have created a very small arc of say 25 meters, then let them come on. If the enemy grunts saw me first, they'd open up. If not, there's a good chance the enemy armor would appear and I really don't know if the game AI would have the STUG open up first, or wait until being fired on by the enemy armor first. Good question ...

Regards,

Doug

[Chainsaw]

You're right but are misquoting. Never said that. My point was that the defender doesn't always KNOW that the enemy has armor. In a CMBN scenario he normally does.

If putting in an ACA was that simple and didn't produce undesirable side effects or confuse the AI Battlefront would have added it. They've already done it. I'd like to have the option but one suspects it's not that simple. Patience....

Ah sorry, misunderstood you then

[noob]

Childress: It's normal sense to screen your tanks with infantry. And it was that back in WW2 to! Especially after 43-44 when the Pzfaust, Bazooka and PIATs became standard. Tanks are good as support and pack a punch, but they are really blind against dug in A/tk guns and small tank hunter teams. Infantry are vulnerable but better on spotting.

So it's not like it's gamey to screen the tanks with infantry, that is to comply with period tactics.

The gameyness or non gameyness of putting infantry in front of tanks isn't the point, i'm not complaining about that, and in retrospect i shouldn't of mentioned it as your are correct about using infantry to screen tanks, however if i know my tanks are going to expose themselves when a single GI runs down a road it really makes it difficult to play the game from a defensive stand point as the ability to ambush armor with AT guns or tanks is a major factor for me.

[noob]

If putting in an ACA was that simple and didn't produce undesirable side effects or confuse the AI Battlefront would have added it. They've already done it. I'd like to have the option but one suspects it's not that simple. Patience....

You are probably right, so i am going to have to be patient as it probably won't be fixed with the CW mod and i can't play CMx2 without it unless i find a workaround.

[Childress]

As far as we know sound contacts accumulated as a battle progresses may alter a tank's targeting priorities. Wouldn't put it past BFC.

[xian]

I know that this would be changing the game mechanics somewhat but perhaps each unit could have a 'Rules of Engagement Setting'?

Perhaps a drop-down menu on the UI:

Something like this:

1. Fire at will [default]

2. Target armour only

3. Favour armour targets

4. Target infantry only

5. Favour Infantry targets

6. Hold Fire

7. Return Fire only

These could work in combination with a standard cover arc.

[Childress]

I know that this would be changing the game mechanics somewhat but perhaps each unit could have a 'Rules of Engagement Setting'?

Perhaps a drop-down menu on the UI:

Thus creating a game that few of us, including probably you, would want to play. And BFC has already nixed the SOP concept. Wisely, imo.

And, frankly, I'm not seeing a lot of boneheaded targeting decisions in game on the part of tank commanders.

[JRMC1879]

Childress: It's normal sense to screen your tanks with infantry. And it was that back in WW2 to! Especially after 43-44 when the Pzfaust, Bazooka and PIATs became standard. Tanks are good as support and pack a punch, but they are really blind against dug in A/tk guns and small tank hunter teams. Infantry are vulnerable but better on spotting.

So it's not like it's gamey to screen the tanks with infantry, that is to comply with period tactics.

Yes - but the tactic of screening tanks with infantry was to protect the tanks against close assault by infantry and hand held AT weapons. You didnt screen tanks with infantry to protect them against other tanks. Maybe AT guns yes - but with good line of sight etc these would have likely been placed in positions behind a screen of their own infantry - so the screening infantry would run into them before they got near a tank or AT gun. Of course there may be situations in covered ground where the tanks and AT guns would have been in the line with infantry but that wasnt done if it could be helped.

The problem with ACA is that it has to allow for some discretion on the part of the tank to decide when infantry becomes enough of a threat to itself to open up on them and forget its covered arc. I seem to recall in CM1 you could set both an armoured and infantry covered arc so the two worked together ? I think decisions on whether requests to the tank to open fire on infantry by the tanks supporting infantry can be left to the player in realtime but in wego its a much longer period.

Seriously - the only way to do it sensibly would be to instigate a system like in John tillers campaign series or steel panthers where you can set individual engagement ranges for types of units.

For example - in a situation where you might want a tank to open up on infantry - you wouldnt want them to open up on an empty truck - but if that truck is full of infantry you would.

I believe the issue is less around giving an armoured covered arc feature although more options are always nice but more around getting the tac AI right so it makes those decisions correctly itself without player intervention.

I would imagine the programming around the AI to take advantage of explicit ACA would be a nightmare - whereas if it was a feature of the TAC ai then it takes care of itself

I think xian post above would be great - but represents a major programming effort for anything outside of a big module. I also do think that battlefront see those items as something the TAC ai should be making decisions on.

Thing is I am never certain that BFs reluctance to do things is so much allowing humans to have those options - but the effort in coding an AI opponent to take advantage of them during a game.

[xian]

I would imagine the programming around the AI to take advantage of explicit ACA would be a nightmare - whereas if it was a feature of the TAC ai then it takes care of itself

That's a nice elegant solution.

But, I'm a little surprised that the logic for Cover Arcs in CMx1 isn't transferable to CMx2.

[JRMC1879]

That's a nice elegant solution.

But, I'm a little surprised that the logic for Cover Arcs in CMx1 isn't transferable to CMx2.

Well I guess it would be - but I suspect the logic for it also included when to disregard that covered arc. Given man to man representation in CMx2 and the fidelity that gives I suspect its much harder to do. I would guess in CM1 when an infantry unit was spotted the whole squad was - and with a certain level of info - whether it had weapons capable of hurting the tank. Now the tank might only spot a single man from the squad - and he might just be carrying a rifle. Does the tank then assume there is a whole squad of ten men then ? and they are also armed with AT weapons ... again - it may also be more complicated but I do beleive the CMx2 model is a whole lot more complex than CM1 ever was and some things that appear simple at first glance become a stream of never ending decisions with the new game.

Again - I still believe the secret lies in the coding of the TAC AI. Maybe with some account for whther the side in the scenario is attacking or defending. My view is the tactics themselves are universal amongst combatants and situations so it can be done. Operation outside of those norms can be done by the player.

Personally I think its much less of an issue in realtime then WEGO - but one thing I think that could be done to resolve some issues is to give the players an option to have 30 second turns.

[thejetset]

Childress: It's normal sense to screen your tanks with infantry. And it was that back in WW2 to! Especially after 43-44 when the Pzfaust, Bazooka and PIATs became standard. Tanks are good as support and pack a punch, but they are really blind against dug in A/tk guns and small tank hunter teams. Infantry are vulnerable but better on spotting.

So it's not like it's gamey to screen the tanks with infantry, that is to comply with period tactics.

I don't think noob's complaint was regarding the actions of the Infantry. You are correct, that is the best way for the attacker to approach the situation when launching a combined arms assault. (both in WWII real life and this game)

The complaint that noob has is the way the GUN/Tank reacted! Suppress the infantry with MG's, mortars or even a couple of squads squeezing off rounds with their M1s. .... But save your 57mm ATG that ONLY has AP rounds (or your tank that you need for ARMOR support) for the armor supporting them!

.... I mean, that was the whole point of his setup. The pixel-truppen commander probably said something along the lines of: "If it's walking or crawling hold your fire!! .... Anything with wheels or treads ... take it out!"

Covering Armor with ATG's that ONLY have AP (or in this case with a StuG III tank that was needed for AT support) rounds is a fundamental necessity of the game ... and therefore, probably the reason why it is the hands-down, #1 "grumble" regarding this game.

[A Canadian Cat]

Sorry, I didn't say it well, but that's what I meant. I would have created a very small arc of say 25 meters, then let them come on. If the enemy grunts saw me first, they'd open up. If not, there's a good chance the enemy armor would appear and I really don't know if the game AI would have the STUG open up first, or wait until being fired on by the enemy armor first.

And there in lies the problem. With the 25m cover arch the Stug would most likely ignore both the infantry and the tank and *not* fire. Even if it gets fired upon it will still likely ignore the enemy outside the cover arc. It is true it will not ignore it forever or in all circumstances and it will depend on the training and morale of the tank crew. Bottom line though is as a SOP the cover arch is to be respected and if there is nothing in the arc no shooting.

And in a WEGO turn this causes a problem because if you want to hold your fire against the infantry you have to have a short arc. But that also means you will not shoot at the tank that comes around the corner either. So your ambushing Stug needs to stay hidden for a whole minute before it can respond. Then you can clear the cover arc and choose your target. The advantage of having an amour cover arc is that you can set the ambush and watch the infantry come down the road and wait to fire on any following tank. If the infantry start getting too close you an clear the target and let the Stug shoot HE at the infantry.

[JRMC1879]

I don't think noob's complaint was regarding the actions of the Infantry. You are correct, that is the best way for the attacker to approach the situation when launching a combined arms assault. (both in WWII real life and this game)

The complaint that noob has is the way the GUN/Tank reacted! Suppress the infantry with MG's, mortars or even a couple of squads squeezing off rounds with their M1s. .... But save your 57mm ATG that ONLY has AP rounds (or your tank that you need for ARMOR support) for the armor supporting them!

.... I mean, that was the whole point of his setup. The pixel-truppen commander probably said something along the lines of: "If it's walking or crawling hold your fire!! .... Anything with wheels or treads ... take it out!"

Covering Armor with ATG's that ONLY have AP (or in this case with a StuG III tank that was needed for AT support) rounds is a fundamental necessity of the game ... and therefore, probably the reason why it is the hands-down, #1 "grumble" regarding this game.

So did AP ever get fired at Infantry in real life in open ground? I would imagine it was only something done in absolute desperation in real life if at all - or likely at pilboxes etc where if was more effective.

Surely then the issue becomes not one of a ACA - but of the gun doing something it wouldnt have done in real life except in the most desparate of circumstances - and to negligible effect. Doesnt the main solution to the issue then become simply - if target = infantry - and not in a pillbox dont fire at all. I would think thats a lot easier to code than a whole bunch of ACA stuff and then becaomes part of the TAC AI ...

Admittedly if the gun has HE its a bit more complicated ... but at least it resolves the specific AP only example.

[slysniper]

You are probably right, so i am going to have to be patient as it probably won't be fixed with the CW mod and i can't play CMx2 without it unless i find a workaround.

Ok, I agree the game needs the arc system fixed. but here is the work around for now. What I am doing anyway.

I now look for keyhole locations that if I am wanting to ambush armor , not infantry. I look for locations I roll into when its time to attack. In other words, I find locations totally out of site where the keyhole is a few yards away, then a place infantry nearby to be my eyes. Thus, if I was guarding the road, I want my infantry to see the enemy, they hold their fire, then when the shermans roll around the corner. Then I roll my tank into place to open fire. I also might have some infantry devert the enemies attention first as I roll into place. Most of the time I find I get the first shot off, maybe the second. Also if too many enemy tank units emerged, I have not been placed in a bad position. With AT guns, I keep the arc way short, located in the keyhole, always someplace if possiple with concealment. They do ok, since the armor generally will not spot them until I open up.

In some ways I feel I am actually playing it more realistic than the old armor covered arc.

In most situations, hiding a tank with concealment in a location that can be spotted was not the best tactic. The germans were pro's at it, but most of the time they would pull into place from a totally concealed spot.

Anyway, learning to adjust ones tactics with how the game plays always work.

[Ranger33]

It wouldn't be quite so bad if the AI was smarter about knowing when to use which weapons. Most grievous examples being tank hunter teams firing their rifles willy nilly at infantry/tanks, and AT guns using their last 3 AP rounds on an infantry squad that is 400m away. Hopefully we will see some adjustments to these with the patch.

Similarly, the spotter in sniper teams firing before and more often than the sniper does...