Gustav Line Beta AAR Round Two PEANUT GALLERY

[$Pec5]

I like the idea of purchasing camouflage, but I'd rather CM abstractly represent fortification camouflage by just making the fortifications in an attack/defend battle inherently more difficult to spot assuming that, if they had time to prepare the position, they most likely also had time to camouflage it. But I'm sure there have been multiplethreads about fortification spotting and what not that I don't want to open back up.

I also think that GaJ lost out on an opportunity to significantly bite into Bil's attack on the Tits. Those reverse slope positions could have really made life difficult on Bil's attack if GaJ put something back there with some teeth. Although, his mortar is already starting to fulfill its purpose.

[Childress]

Wouldn't it be great if we could purchase camouflage which would give a considerable concealment bonus to any unit that hasn't moved.

To the best of my knowledge, AT guns already enjoy a concealment bonus- virtual camouflage- provided they haven't moved since Setup.

[Ron]

It does in this case, if you don't want the cover providers to be presenting a forward slope defense to Bil's potential overwatch positions.

I'm not buying it. This was an opportunity for the defender to create a many-on-one situation. GAJ already has a mortar and mg covering the back side of the left tit. Extrapolate further and imagine if they were accompanied by some form of AT asset to cover a reverse slope barrier screen with select TRP locations. Instead of firing blindly the mortar could be acting together with the other assets to have a true combined arms kill zone.

[Ron]

Such a poor choice of location for an AT gun deserves to be punished.

Agreed and tall grass or not, let's not forget the size of this thing at over 5' high.

[MikeyD]

Something I read once and have repeated often, The Brits did a survey of 2 pdr AT guns in the Western Desert and found that typically they were only able get off six shots before being destroyed during a battle. Some weapons and specialists simply have a high mortality rate, from B.A.R. men to platoon level corporals. They're bullet magnets. A tank comes into view and your AT gun holds its fire hoping its concealment holds - it becomes a game of Russian Roulette.

[nik mond]

Just curious if the gun was given a facing adjustment before it was destroyed. I notice its not completely inline with where its target was, and quite often players want to shift that gun shield towards the threat. Not realizing this is the equivalent of tossing your cam net off your gun and losing any concealment bonus. Happened to me before, lesson learned.

[Alan8325]

Just curious if the gun was given a facing adjustment before it was destroyed. I notice its not completely inline with where its target was, and quite often players want to shift that gun shield towards the threat. Not realizing this is the equivalent of tossing your cam net off your gun and losing any concealment bonus. Happened to me before, lesson learned.

I don't think it was shifting its facing prior to being spotted by the Jpz because GaJ had issued the ATG a 'Hide' command, which should keep all movement to a minimum. Spotting from vehicles aside (which may currently be slightly too good), GaJ should have kept that particular ATG unhidden and allowed to fire at Bil's overwatch units since these units are unlikely to show their flank on that hill as GaJ was hoping. He likely would have hit the Jpz at least once which could knock it out or at least immobilize it. If he did manage to knock it out, Bil probably would have used his Brummbar to try to take out the ATG which would be unsuppressed and ready to fire again. Even the Brummbar then would face at least a possible immobilization. That said, I also agree that the ATG could have been placed in a much better position.

[Michael Emrys]

This is what really bugs me about The CMx2 series at the moment. It may not have Borg spotting anymore but instead we have infa-red like spotting from AFV's to replace it!

Movement is what attracts attention to your existence on a battlefield and for that JgPzIV to simply saunter up to the ridge and then spot the emplaced AT gun so easily is laughable. In reality, the AT gun would be camouflaged and seeing as it hasn't moved, be virtually impossible to spot yet in this case it was out spotted and out drawn by the AFV. Ridiculous!

As I stated before, the 76 mm ATG was a rather large piece of equipment. Hiding it was not an easy task, so I am not surprised that it was spotted by something. That said, it seems to me that what you are saying about spotting from AFVs is far too easy, especially if they are moving. And as you say, objects in motions—especially objects as large as tanks—attract the eye at much greater ranges than stationary objects.

Michael

[JonS]

In RL they are naturally set in such a way that besides the muzzle you don’t see anything else.

A-Tk guns are not naturally anything. It is up to the crew - which in the case of CM means you, the player - to manually and labouriously set them up in a way that maximises whatever you want and minimises whatever you don't in any given circumstances. You might, for example, want to maximise you field of view, but equally you might want to keyhole the gun and minimise FOV. You might chose to minimise engagement range at the cost of concealment, or you might want to maximise concealment even though you know that'll limit observation. There is no one-size-fits-all answer here.

[MikeyD]

Apparenty, American anti-tank gunners weren't exactly masters at the fine art of camouflage.

[womble]

I'm not buying it. This was an opportunity for the defender to create a many-on-one situation. GAJ already has a mortar and mg covering the back side of the left tit. Extrapolate further and imagine if they were accompanied by some form of AT asset to cover a reverse slope barrier screen with select TRP locations. Instead of firing blindly the mortar could be acting together with the other assets to have a true combined arms kill zone.

Long range AT assets are difficult to hide. The grass is doing a much better job of hiding the mortar and MG teams. We've seen how much help it was for the 76er. Putting a "forlorn hope" with close range AT assets in a position to cover the crest of the Tits might have been an option. Whether it would have repaid the investment before being cut off, surrounded and wiped out is another question.

[Blackcat]

Never mind spotting the ATG, as Baneman posts, that JPz IV has just spotted at HMG bunker at a range, from Bill's maps, of well over a kilometre. That is crazy. I don't care how good German optics were, clocking a MG bunker, that hasn't fired, at 1 KM plus is not on. That bunker might now just as well not exist, it will never achieve any kills as Bill can destroy it any time he likes. So GAJ has got a hole in his defences, though he doesn't yet know it. Its things like that that really annoy me about this game.

[sburke]

Well we have only a cursory reference on GaJ about placement. It is an HMG bunker which begs the question why it was placed with visibility all that distance. Even if Bil had not spotted it yet, it seems to have been a really bad position as whenever it got spotted, there was a nice overwatch position to kill it from.

Again there are assumptions about concealment that don't have anything to support them yet. For all we know this thing is standing in the open in clear view of anyone with a pair of binoculars.

This is another bit of bad luck for GaJ that I think is going to be traced back to not paying close enough attention to where things can be seen from. Bunkers are tough to place and I can only attest to having ever placed one in a good position. That was an off angle to hit an attacker from the side while being completely concealed prior to the enemy getting into that position. The good news is - you can bail out.

[MikeyD]

If there's a concrete bunker on the map we can only assume Mussolini had ordered the cement poured for it circa 1938. So we can't really fault GaJ for its placement.

[Blackcat]

"This is another bit of bad luck for GaJ that I think is going to be traced back to not paying close enough attention to where things can be seen from."

I suspect you are right, but that is in game terms. However, unless we are talking about a blockhouse the size of a house standing in an open field with no attempt at cammo, this sighting stinks. A lone armoured vehicle in position for a very short time just should not be able to see a MG bunker, that has not fired, at more than five-eighths of a mile. It is daft and it is wrong and, I suspect, goes back to a very early design decision to, in the code, classify bunkers as vehicles.

[c3k]

I agree with a lot of the camo/spotting comments.

If the crew is supposed to work to camo the atg, why don't we have a "camo" command? Otherwise, I must use sharpies on my computer screen to create a dapple camo effect on my atg's and hope for the best. That's the ONLY control a player has over camo.

To the game: interesting effect spotting the MG bunker will have. Bil will surely nail it... That'll be two defensive assets on the left that GaJ will've lost.

[Baneman]

...

Again there are assumptions about concealment that don't have anything to support them yet. For all we know this thing is standing in the open in clear view of anyone with a pair of binoculars...

True, but in game for a Defender in an Attack-Defend battle, bunkers should be assumed to be "well-concealed".

[Freyberg]

I especially agree about bunkers.

Perhaps camouflage could be purchased like foxholes and such. Lots of defensive assets - including AFVs, could be made invisible from medium distance by a RL defender.

Having said that, that gun was fair game out in the open like that.

[Michael Emrys]

True, but in game for a Defender in an Attack-Defend battle, bunkers should be assumed to be "well-concealed".

Why? I've seen scores of photos of bunkers that weren't concealed at all. Some bunkers were skillfully sited and camouflaged, others were not. Some of those could not have been hidden, yet for tactical reasons it was necessary to have one there.

Michael

[Vanir Ausf B]

To the best of my knowledge, AT guns already enjoy a concealment bonus- virtual camouflage- provided they haven't moved since Setup.

According to the manual this is true. Why this is only true of AT guns is not clear to me. In CMx1 the same effect was given to vehicles.

[womble]

...unless we are talking about a blockhouse the size of a house standing in an open field with no attempt at cammo...

As far as I can see from Bil's screenie, that's pretty much what we are talking about. It's perhaps not the size of a house, but it is in the open. Bil characterises his "Spot" as "shaky" and that, I think, might be because there is some tree foliage screening the location.

...this sighting stinks...

I think it's more that the siting stinks.

...I suspect, goes back to a very early design decision to, in the code, classify bunkers as vehicles.

I suspect that what concealment this bunker is receiving is down to trees, and that it is so little is down to some odd "moving foliage" behaviour that produces "spot-through-able" holes in wind-blown trees even when such holes would not appear in the real thing. We've probably all experienced the "long range spot (or shot) through tree foliage".

IIRC, GaJ wasn't expecting there to be LOS from that far back into the position of his bunker; it was supposed to be a difficult obstacle for infantry that would force commitment of armour into places that ATG could shoot at them. I think he's misread the lie of the land, or the "lie of the targeting tool"...

[$Pec5]

He has misread the terrain, but the fact that it was spotted at such a great distance by a tank in overwatch is what has people upset, me included.

[newlife]

Ooh! Ooh! So glad we have a penut gallery to let these things out on. Bil just ordered his Elephant to drive up to the left tit. Possibly getting it quite close to the sniper. Its hard to tell, but it looks like its unbottoned. Here's hoping for a TC kill for Gaj's sniper.

[newlife]

I imagine the easiest solution for a fix would be to create a separate camouflaged bunker unit that gets spotted like infantry. So on purchase, the player can buy the bare concrete or the camo bunker. Then they can be priced accordingly and get both perspectives. As is, the current bunker situation is WYSIWYG, the darn thing is bare concrete. Which can be confusing when other things (like unmoved ATGs) are abstracted to have concealment. (Unless you're Gaj)

[womble]

Ooh! Ooh! So glad we have a penut gallery to let these things out on. Bil just ordered his Elephant to drive up to the left tit. Possibly getting it quite close to the sniper. Its hard to tell, but it looks like its unbottoned. Here's hoping for a TC kill for Gaj's sniper.

And then a CA kill on the whole vehicle... Mr Floppy in the cupola won't be stopping them popping a couple of pineapples inside. Just because it would be a bit of extraordinary drama, natch. I don't have a bias one way or the other.