Battle Breaker Bugs and Such

[Pak40]

Over the easter weekend, I was camping. The field we were setting up our tents in was out of bounds to vehicles because of the mud. 4x4s could negotiate it; most modern cars driven by most modern drivers would have ended up mired. We had to haul a small trailer with at most about 300kilos in it, so total gross weight was probably in the order of 500kg (approx 1100lb). That wasn't quick with 5 pushers, and this is a grassy (though puddinged) field. Trying to shove the thing about in the margins of a hedgerow or under the trees would have been a near impossibility without twice as many, and they'd've needed ropes to clew onto. Ground conditions make a big difference.

I can push-start a family car solo on level tarmac. Even a slight grade (assuming I had to go up it) would make that impossible, and forget about it on grass unless I've got cleats on and it's dry and short.

Still, guns should be more like vehicles: able to be reversed, and able to be dismounted and remounted.

True, paved surface will make it real easy to push a vehicle or gun. I saw an old clip in a documentary of a crew unhitch a 57mm wheel it about 10 yards from the truck and fire 3 quick rounds. The whole process was amazingly fast, more than I anticipated. Something like 15 seconds. This was on an hard or concrete surface.

[Georgie]

Who says its hard to move a field gun?

[c3k]

My point was PURELY to show that a weight of 1,800 pounds on a single axle, when balanced, allows relatively easy movement when a group of men (4-5) are available to push/pull the item. NOT to say that antitank guns should be used in assaults.

[JasonC]

They did it in combat. Especially in urban area fighting it is true, where the short movement was often on pavement. Set up with one sight picture (keyholed e.g.), move the gun slightly to see a different building. All offensive use of towed guns had to be willing to manhandle them the last 10-15 yards to some "see the enemy" position. The guns most commonly moved this way were small ATGs, infantry guns, and light field guns, pack howitzers etc in direct lay.

And it was a lot faster in real life than it has ever been in any version of CM, including current versions.

I can understand wanting to avoid unrealistic long moves of guns over 100-200 yards during action, and "nerfing" speed as one way of accomplishing that. But it makes them less flexible than they actually were. I'd also think with individual man modeling the actual downside of moving a gun would be much easier to get right - a bunched target of dismounts crowded behind the gun, if the enemy could shoot them. That, fatigue, and some delay to get the full ammo load of the piece moved to its new position if and only if the move were long, should be the only real obstacles.

[JasonC]

On the title subject - my sniper team's number two opening up with his side arm at inconvenient ranges, giving away the stealthier sniper's position. Related but less of a battle-breaker, the SMGs in teams and squads opening fire at ranges that are too far, and running themselves dry before they are really useful as a side effect.

I don't want the micromanagement fiddle of separate covered arcs for different weapons within a team, that would be going too far. But some sort of SOP, maybe with a button command override, that tells the shorter ranged weapons to hold their fire - along the lines of target vs target light perhaps.

Personally I don't want any of my SMGs firing beyond about 80 meters unless specifically ordered to do so. That is far enough that it keeps grenade throwers away, and close enough that they will hit things in meaningful amounts before blowing through their ammo.

[mjkerner]

On the title subject - my sniper team's number two opening up with his side arm at inconvenient ranges, giving away the stealthier sniper's position. Related but less of a battle-breaker, the SMGs in teams and squads opening fire at ranges that are too far, and running themselves dry before they are really useful as a side effect.

I don't want the micromanagement fiddle of separate covered arcs for different weapons within a team, that would be going too far. But some sort of SOP, maybe with a button command override, that tells the shorter ranged weapons to hold their fire - along the lines of target vs target light perhaps.

Personally I don't want any of my SMGs firing beyond about 80 meters unless specifically ordered to do so. That is far enough that it keeps grenade throwers away, and close enough that they will hit things in meaningful amounts before blowing through their ammo.

Boy, + 1 to that!

[Georgie]

One thing that I think is a "Battle Breaker" is that tanks in general are too effective at short range. Their situation awareness, which in some ways rivals that of modern tanks, and their response time and accuracy, even with a conscript crew, makes infantry support for them less vital than it should be.

[Vanir Ausf B]

^^^ That I can agree with. Hence my sig.

[Sailor Malan2]

One thing that I think is a "Battle Breaker" is that tanks in general are too effective at short range. Their situation awareness, which in some ways rivals that of modern tanks, and their response time and accuracy, even with a conscript crew, makes infantry support for them less vital than it should be.

You are obviously playing a different game to me - my unescorted tanks get nailed!:mad:

[c2yeung]

The AI does not have an advantage but the defender does. Yup clearing built up areas/woodland is expensive for the attacker as the nature of the terrain (close up ambush) will always favour the defender - mopping up is a misnomer I feel for what is a close up and often bloody business.

To reduce your casualty count have you tried hosing down buildings etc with fire (either direct or indirect) before sending your grunts in to get up close and personal. As far as practically possible I do this. It saves casualties.

Scenario designers can help reduce this 'unfair' effect by having smaller objective zones - although often having a larger objective zone may well be a scenario design choice i.e. the attacker has to clear and secure objectives, as often has to happen in RL. You don't want stay behinds popping up and taking our your supply echelons or re-establishing defensive positions behind your lines eh?

Well said. I guess by design the defenders do have an advantage laying in wait for my guys to expose themselves. Wherever I could,I will from now on hose down a ?? enemy in buildings and wooded area.

Another game breaker is the AI in some scenarios being too rigid. When defending, the perfectly rested units controlled by the computer tend to, unless provoked, stay in their assigned spot throughout the game. They don't really maneuver to counter attack or help their buddies who are in danger of being overrun by me. Knowing that they won't give me trouble and, I simply concentrate my force on my objective and bypass them altogether. I should try playing against a human.

[agusto]

On the title subject - my sniper team's number two opening up with his side arm at inconvenient ranges, giving away the stealthier sniper's position. Related but less of a battle-breaker, the SMGs in teams and squads opening fire at ranges that are too far, and running themselves dry before they are really useful as a side effect.

I don't want the micromanagement fiddle of separate covered arcs for different weapons within a team, that would be going too far. But some sort of SOP, maybe with a button command override, that tells the shorter ranged weapons to hold their fire - along the lines of target vs target light perhaps.

Personally I don't want any of my SMGs firing beyond about 80 meters unless specifically ordered to do so. That is far enough that it keeps grenade throwers away, and close enough that they will hit things in meaningful amounts before blowing through their ammo.

+1 to that.

[poesel]

MGs/mortars taking ammo from the ammo bearers first so if their ammo is depleted I can send them off to get more ammo which is their FRIGGIN JOB!

[Baneman]

MGs/mortars taking ammo from the ammo bearers first so if their ammo is depleted I can send them off to get more ammo which is their FRIGGIN JOB!

OMG, that is a big one !!

+lots

[Rake]

Well said. I guess by design the defenders do have an advantage laying in wait for my guys to expose themselves. Wherever I could,I will from now on hose down a ?? enemy in buildings and wooded area.

I don't even wait for the ???... If it looks suspicious, it gets hosed.

Another game breaker is the AI in some scenarios being too rigid. When defending, the perfectly rested units controlled by the computer tend to, unless provoked, stay in their assigned spot throughout the game. They don't really maneuver to counter attack or help their buddies who are in danger of being overrun by me. Knowing that they won't give me trouble and, I simply concentrate my force on my objective and bypass them altogether. I should try playing against a human.

To my knowledge, AI units will not move without scripted AI orders unless they're routed by fire.

On the title subject - my sniper team's number two opening up with his side arm at inconvenient ranges, giving away the stealthier sniper's position. Related but less of a battle-breaker, the SMGs in teams and squads opening fire at ranges that are too far, and running themselves dry before they are really useful as a side effect.

I don't want the micromanagement fiddle of separate covered arcs for different weapons within a team, that would be going too far. But some sort of SOP, maybe with a button command override, that tells the shorter ranged weapons to hold their fire - along the lines of target vs target light perhaps.

Personally I don't want any of my SMGs firing beyond about 80 meters unless specifically ordered to do so. That is far enough that it keeps grenade throwers away, and close enough that they will hit things in meaningful amounts before blowing through their ammo.

Spot on, with both points!

[c2yeung]

I don't even wait for the ???... If it looks suspicious, it gets hosed.

To my knowledge, AI units will not move without scripted AI orders unless they're routed by fire.

Spot on, with both points!

That is exactly my point. I hope the game engine is sophisticated enough to allow the AI to assess the battle situation and surroundings, communicate with other units and respond accordingly instead of playing static defense. The AI battle plans should be made more fluid both in attacking and defending. By the way, wouldn't it be sweet to have the brain power of the IBM Blue as the computer player? I think it gave the best Russian chess player a good run for his money.

[LukeFF]

A big +1 on the SMGs. The ranges at which they open fire is ridiculous.

[A Canadian Cat]

On the title subject - my sniper team's number two opening up with his side arm at inconvenient ranges, giving away the stealthier sniper's position.

<snip>

I don't want the micromanagement fiddle of separate covered arcs for different weapons within a team, that would be going too far. But some sort of SOP, maybe with a button command override, that tells the shorter ranged weapons to hold their fire - along the lines of target vs target light perhaps.

+1 for that too. Just a change to the behaviour of the sniper team number two would work. Have them not open fire until there are close by threats (80m as you suggest) or if they start taking fire on their location. By then your sniper is already made and it should be weapons free.

[A Canadian Cat]

You are obviously playing a different game to me - my unescorted tanks get nailed!:mad:

Hee Hee - mine too. The thing is while my tanks get nailed any time they wander away from their infantry friends, my enemy's tanks seem to be able to wonder with relative impunity.

[Georgie]

Another game breaker is the AI in some scenarios being too rigid. When defending, the perfectly rested units controlled by the computer tend to, unless provoked, stay in their assigned spot throughout the game. They don't really maneuver to counter attack or help their buddies who are in danger of being overrun by me. Knowing that they won't give me trouble and, I simply concentrate my force on my objective and bypass them altogether. I should try playing against a human.

Currently this game doesn't have triggers and without them , in my opinion, the scenario designer can't include an effective dynamic response to the attacking forces penetration of the defenders defensive line. They can guess where and when the line will be penetrated but its just a wag and in my experience in attacking a computer defense is that any dynamic response by the defender just provides me with some juicy targets.

[BLSTK]

How about the anti-tank man who refuses to use the Schreck/Zook strapped to his back?

[Ranger33]

Just imagine those Soviet SMG squads opening up at max range and wasting all of their ammo while the German riflemen giggle and wait. BFC fix or somefink

[Redwolf]

A big +1 on the SMGs. The ranges at which they open fire is ridiculous.

Did anybody measure whether they are still firing off all their ammo faster than the real soldiers in WW2 could (CMBB complaint)?

[JasonC]

Ranger33 - actually with uniform SMG squads as in the Russian army, I could control the behavior with covered arcs, and it would not be a significant problem. It is the mix of ranges that gives rise to the issue. At ranges where LMGs and rifles are perfectly effective, SMGs should be saving their ammo - that can't be handled with a covered arc. At ranges where a sniper rifle is hard to hear and locate accurately, and entirely effective, the spotter with his SMG should stay quiet as a church - but without it meaning the sniper himself has to hold his fire.

[Sublime]

Im sure its quite a bit different simply because it's a completely different engine. Especially in respect with infantry - their modeled 1:1 and the guns and projectiles are modeled as opposed to points on a matrix attacking each other with abstracted firepower ratings.

I think it's actually been shown - with HMGs at least - that they almost always fire at a significantly lower RoF than they would in real life. However it was also pointed out that just because an MG42 had a RoF of 1200 rpm didnt mean they ran the gun at the speed constantly either.

[Ranger33]

Ranger33 - actually with uniform SMG squads as in the Russian army, I could control the behavior with covered arcs, and it would not be a significant problem. It is the mix of ranges that gives rise to the issue. At ranges where LMGs and rifles are perfectly effective, SMGs should be saving their ammo - that can't be handled with a covered arc. At ranges where a sniper rifle is hard to hear and locate accurately, and entirely effective, the spotter with his SMG should stay quiet as a church - but without it meaning the sniper himself has to hold his fire.

Yay! More micro-management!

I get what you are saying, but the AI could certainly be smarter about it's weapon usage. See also: AT guns/tanks/direct-fire-arty mindlessly firing into obstacles over and over.