John Kettler vs. CMBN--The Learning Curve!

[Vanir Ausf B]

I apparently don't qualify for personhood since I don't expect unrealistic amounts of flexibility.

By the "fireplanning function" are you referring to pre-planned bombardments? They are already so effective in the game that many people disallow them except in specific circumstances. Is the effectiveness of pre-planned bombardment under modeled?

[womble]

I apparently don't qualify for personhood since I don't expect unrealistic amounts of flexibility.

By the "fireplanning function" are you referring to pre-planned bombardments? They are already so effective in the game that many people disallow them except in specific circumstances. Is the effectiveness of pre-planned bombardment under modeled?

I think what Jon is trying to say is that the flexibility of pre-planned bombardments is under modelled. For example IRL, you can plan for a linear barrage that moves its impact zone downrange at a steady pace. Without several batteries available, that's not possible in CM.

Much of this sort of thing is doable with TRPs, but they're even more flexible, in that you don't need to preplan the timings, and the mission can suit the occasion, rather than be whatever you thought you'd want before you hit contact.

[Vanir Ausf B]

Pre-planned artillery in CM may be less flexible than IRL, but I seriously doubt it is less effective in the aggregate. Jon himself has posted to that effect in the past.

Relating the ineffectiveness of artillery back to S.L.A. Marshall, the discussions of artillery in the Battle Experience Questionnaires reveals that while indirect fire support played an important role on the battlefield, it was never going to be a decisive weapon, given its inherent inaccuracy. The point of amassing such a preponderance of artillery on the battlefield was not to use it to obliterate the enemy, which was rarely possible, but to essentially “escort” the infantry in close enough to an objective to avoid the brunt of enemy fire. When it came down to the final advance on a position, infantry would be expected – and, indeed, would have to – use their small arms to engage and kill the enemy in a fight for the position.

My emphasis added.

[JonS]

I mean the ability to create a fire plan that can engage a timed sequence of targets with the same fire unit. The ability to engage beyond H+15mins. The ability to engage at times other than H, H+5, H+10, H+15. The ability to specify the number of rounds FFE. The ability to specify the rate. The ability to engage a targets with x rnds FFE followed by y rounds rate z. And a few other things. All at-start, and then being tied in to that schedule.

Once all that is available, only then would restricting post-H fire to point targets only would make some sense.

I'm not talking about effectiveness (although that is part of it of course), but flexibility.

[womble]

Pre-planned artillery in CM may be less flexible than IRL, but I seriously doubt it is less effective in the aggregate...

Which is kinda the point. Currently it's as, or more effective "in aggregate" as RL. If you combined the "limited" current range of in-game pre-planned fireplans with a "point target only" limitation for bombardments once the game gets under way, arty would, inarguably, be less effective.

[John Kettler]

JonS,

Emphatically agree! We should also have the ability to register our own targets, call down fire on them at will and have a Check Fire command, which is NOT the same as a mission-canceling Cease Fire. Check Fire means "Stop shooting now and wait for further instructions." I think the "footprints" I presented in the sheaf discussion bear further study, too. If we had barrages, then the value of breaking the tempo of the attack would be clearly shown, too.

womble,

Not necessarily, if someone attacks my position, and I can call down either TRPed or freshly registered fires, I can wreak havoc because the opponent has exposed troops, who must advance, to my mortar and artillery meatgrinder.

Regards,

John Kettler

[JonS]

… also the ability to dwell, some concept of superimposition, and the ability to engage a targets with x rnds FFE followed by rate z for w minutes (that is a method which has a duration, rather than a number of rounds). Larger calibres (anything over 25-pr for the British, 105mm for the US and Germany) should /only/ be usable in fireplans. And some other freedoms and constraints.

And womble has it right. The existing “fireplanning” capability in CM, in conjunction with the post-H flexibility the game allows, captures a reasonable part of the essence of artillery. In my opinion, BFC have shunted some of the functions of what should ordinarily be part of fireplanning over to decisions to be made in-play by the players. Restricting post-H freedoms without increasing the capability of fireplans would, overall, make for a worse game.

I, personally, would like all the additional freedoms and constraints I’ve talked about here. Kind of. Occasionally. Mostly though I think it’d be a PITA. It would make the setup phase crucial, but could easily result in the actual game being a lot less dynamic or interesting. I can’t imagine there’d be many folk who would actually like it that way (as opposed to saying they’d prefer it that way), and there’d be a boatload who would reject it outright.

John,

I think you mean well, and you have a singular ability to google buzzwords, but sometimes that isn’t enough.

[John Kettler]

Rankorian,

I just remembered another study relevant to the microrelief issue. The U.S. Army concluded that small undulations and depressions in the ground typically masked tanks from roughly the track guards down, denying a whole series of potential target areas on these tanks except at very close ranges.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Commissar]

I'm kind of in the same situation as John Kettler. Played the CMx1 games since they first came out and played them to death. I did play CMSF when it came out and really didn't care for it. It had too many bugs that annoyed the hell out of me and I pretty much stopped playing it for a long time (like years). I just picked up CM: Normandy and Italy and can say much of what bothered me about the CMx2 engine in CMSF appears gone now.

One thing that is seems to be missing though is a way to quickly and accurately see the contours of terrain so I can get tanks in a proper hull down position. In CMx1, you had a view line that followed the contours of the ground that helped you do this, but in CMx2 there doesn't seem to be anything that can help you do this. Am I just missing the command/function? Also, one could have all target and movement command lines be shown in CMx1. CMx2 allows all movement commands to be shown, but not all firing commands to be shown too. Is there a way to get CMx2 to do both? Sorry if this has been asked before, but I haven't been on these forums in several years.

It's great to see some old names still around here like John.

[womble]

One thing that is seems to be missing though is a way to quickly and accurately see the contours of terrain so I can get tanks in a proper hull down position. In CMx1, you had a view line that followed the contours of the ground that helped you do this, but in CMx2 there doesn't seem to be anything that can help you do this. Am I just missing the command/function?

It's a non-explicit function of the "Target" command. If you select the target command, the target line will change colour when you can no longer target a given patch of ground. Moving your cursor over the map with the target command selected can give you a fair idea of where crests are. There's the added advantage of being able to Target from any intermediate waypoint, too, so you can see what's in LOS and what's not from anywhere on the map, though the target line is drawn on-screen as coming from the unit's current location, it's assessed as from the waypoint you have selected. Bear in mind, though, that LOS is assessed from your unit in your unit's current posture, and unless it's to a specific target, it's assessed at ground level at the target end. As a consequence units can sometimes see more or less than you thought, because they see a target that's higher than ground level, or end up prone, whereas they were standing when you checked what LOS they'd have. It's not perfect, but it's pretty useful, and you'll learn how to compensate for the things that are too hard to machine code.

Also, one could have all target and movement command lines be shown in CMx1. CMx2 allows all movement commands to be shown, but not all firing commands to be shown too. Is there a way to get CMx2 to do both? Sorry if this has been asked before, but I haven't been on these forums in several years.

No. There is no "Show all movement orders". I wish it were possible to show all orders that you've put in, but apparently each given member of a squad could potentially be shooting at different targets, it's computationally impractical (and aesthetically undesirable) to show all the actual targeting lines, and this apparently makes it impossible to show the targeting orders too.

[Michael Emrys]

There is no "Show all movement orders".

Er, I don't know about BN, but FI has a "Show all movement paths" order. I think maybe BN does too, and if it doesn't yet, presumably it will with v2.

Michael

[mjkerner]

BN has it too.

[Mord]

He's talking about ALL orders, not just movement. But seeing how target lines share some of the same colors it would probably get pretty confusing.

Mord.

[womble]

Er, I don't know about BN, but FI has a "Show all movement paths" order. I think maybe BN does too, and if it doesn't yet, presumably it will with v2.

Michael

Argle. Sorry. I mistyped. I meant "there is no Show All Fire Orders toggle". Stoopid going back and trying to make sentences clearer... I know there's a Show all Movement Paths toggle, cos I almost always have it on.

He's talking about ALL orders, not just movement. But seeing how target lines share some of the same colors it would probably get pretty confusing.

Fire orders (not the targets selected by the AI; I completely understand that trying to show all those could be a PITA of fine degree, though I don't think it could hurt to be able to explicitly show the current targeting choices of the currently selected unit) could be black and white for Target and Target Light. If it gets confusing, you could toggle off Paths while you're examining your fires, if you wanted.

[Michael Emrys]

Fire orders (not the targets selected by the AI; I completely understand that trying to show all those could be a PITA of fine degree, though I don't think it could hurt to be able to explicitly show the current targeting choices of the currently selected unit) could be black and white for Target and Target Light.

That's a thought. Speaking for myself, I don't know how often I would be using it, but I can see where in a large battle with a lot of shooting going on, it might help to keep track of who you have given firing order to.

Michael

[womble]

That's a thought. Speaking for myself, I don't know how often I would be using it, but I can see where in a large battle with a lot of shooting going on, it might help to keep track of who you have given firing order to.

It would help organise things like suppressive fire on a hedgerow, too, allowing you to evenly space out your aim points without constantly referring back to previous units, or counting action spots... It wouldn't allow any greater fire control thatn you can already exert, but it would speed up attaining the results that you can already achieve.

[Baneman]

It would help organise things like suppressive fire on a hedgerow, too, allowing you to evenly space out your aim points without constantly referring back to previous units, or counting action spots... It wouldn't allow any greater fire control thatn you can already exert, but it would speed up attaining the results that you can already achieve.

This.

Also, I don't give a lot of firing orders as the TacAI does a pretty good job. But when you have given some, you have to cycle through your whole army to find them and stop them. It's a pain.

[John Kettler]

SPOILER ALERT!!!!!

SPOILER ALERT!!!!!

Following one failed attempt to launch this attack, playing the attacking Americans in "A Delaying Action," canceled because the men fell asleep, exhausted from the breakout (actually canceled because I couldn't summon up enough brain cells to even handle setup the first time around), the American attack jumped off in fine, quiet, early dawn style, only to be undone by that gung ho idiot Johann "Josh" Dietrich, who commands K Company--for now. Determined to prove how American he is, ethnicity notwithstanding, he wound up compromising the attack by emerging with his command element from the woods, starting a firefight across the plowed fields singlehandedly and managed to wake up what my men think is an 88. Whatever it is is angry and spewed forth several rounds, pinning the highly motivated dolt and his radioman in the open and killing someone else in K Platoon HQ, not to mention putting several squads facedown in the nearby woods. Treebursts aren't much fun. Mortars are being deployed this turn behind the treeline, and the FO team somehow failed to leave the jeep, resulting in dangerous exposure of a scarce, vital asset.

(Memo to self: Short cover arcs in the future on HQs and remember to watch for impetuous lads like Dietrich. Also, be sure to cancel FO jeep movement which may remain when unloading FO team.)

Regards,

John Kettler

[womble]

SPOILER ALERT!!!!!

SPOILER ALERT!!!!!

..."A Delaying Action,"...

John, before you get too deep into this one, you should know that the alphabetical ordering of Scenarios in the menu presents a very tricky scenario as the "first one to play". Just so you know.

Memo to self: Short cover arcs in the future on HQs...

It's probably a good idea to get into the habit of putting short cover arcs on everything as a default. You never know when a surprise sight line is going to prompt the TacAI to take position-exposing potshots.

[John Kettler]

womble,

Are you suggesting an in-flight mission abort? Or should I simply press on and see what happens? From what I've seen, there are some, by my standards, enormous forces to array early in the player's learning curve. As noted previously, I'm pretty sure one had a battalion. If not, it sure seemed like it.

Cover arcs for everyone. Oh joy! More work!

Regards,

John Kettler

[Baneman]

Well, if you're playing the AI, it doesn't matter if you get crushed like a bug.

It never happened, right

[Michael Emrys]

Are you suggesting an in-flight mission abort?

That's up to you. It's what I would do, but then that's me. But from this point onward, I'd strongly advise that for your next game—if you are still playing scenarios—go through the list looking for small ones. You know, the ones having a one or two man battle size icon.

Michael

[John Kettler]

Michael Emrys,

I didn't know there was such a thing as a battle size icon. Looks like Dietrich may be able to postpone his date with death/glory/field court martial. Appreciate the tip!

womble,

Didn't scenarios used to be in order of increasing difficulty? Or am I having AH Tobruk flashbacks?

Regards,

John Kettler

[John Kettler]

Since the attack was compromised before it could get rolling, HQ has wisely called it off and is calling in the 9th ATAF to blast the place, after which someone else will get to mop up. Someone with a bit more subtlety and better discipline.

Regards,

John Kettler

[John Kettler]

New orders! Stand to! 18 Platoon

This'll be my first foray into the CW side of things, and already I find myself a bit flummoxed. I know my Regiment, I know my Battalion, but I haven't the foggiest as to what my Company is. Did the British simply not bother and just numbered all of the Battalion's platoons? If so, I find it odd, since I've read a bunch of CW accounts in which Companies were mentioned.

Regards,

John Kettler