Questions for Steve (General PBEM) #3

[Simon Fox]

Well there always has been the school of thought that the best use for a Sherman was as a roadblock.

[Doug Beman]

This is SO cool! Fionn lost a halftrack to what he thought was US artillery, but was in fact a hidden bazooka team. He has *no* idea there are American AT forces (albeit weak) astride his advance route.

Oh manomanoman I cannot wait for this game to ship.

DjB

[Ben Galanti]

Well, his grunts did stumble over the 'zooka team and kill it later... But still, it took out the one halftrack, and, kinda making up for the whole jumbo thing, a second HT got brewed up by a mortar hit as it was trying to go around...

Steve, since Fionn can't push the vehicles out of the way, is there any reason for him to keep HT's he has left in the clearing and the StuG on the map?

[Doug Beman]

They are, aren't they? I mean, those two winter screenshots that you guys posted a couple of weeks ago. They're from this very battle.

Am I correct?

DjB

[Ben Galanti]

Mike D, the answer to your question about the imbolized Sherman may be over in Fionn's thread. In short, he thinks he hit it with a stray mortar shot that he forgot to cancel From Martin's screenshot, it looks like the shell hit pretty close. I assume a pretty large calibre HE shell like that could at least knock a track off... The arty has been murder in this game, is it always this bad Steve?

[Guest Big Time Software]

Fatherof4, yes, one from bazooka fire and another from mortar fire. I haven't read their reports, but it is possible that either or both drew the wrong conclusion for the problem (fog of war). I can see it from both sides so I know all

Rhet, we will have to look into the flag thing more. They appear to work fine in the movies I am looking at here. Head scratcher at this point. I wouldn't look for any logic. Probably just some sort of variable bug. The victory % seems to be correct though, so it could just be a display bug.

Mike, not to worry... this was a bug that has already been fixed (or at least written down). What happend was the Panther was trying to shoot at something behind the Sherman with HE, but accidentally hit the house by mistake (cool, huh?). The shell immobilized the Sherman. Not realistic at all in our opinion. So don't worry, it will be fixed. This is only Alpha after all...

Yes, the previous screenshots were from the scenario as I was first making it.

In terms of Martin's Shermans... well, they are useless, but that isn't CM's fault Their guns can hurt either the Panther or the StuG at close range from flank or rear, but Martin has VERY little opportunity to get off such a shot. The nature of the terrain is not in the Sherman's favor at all. And the fact that Fionn's tankers are all Veteran and his are all Regular has a big impact. Losing the Jumbo was just really bad luck and might have made a big difference if it wasn't knocked out. But let me tell you, I have killed Jumbos before cleanly, so they aren't invunerable. Just takes a bit of doing

Steve

[Guest Big Time Software]

The artillery was 81mm mortar HE. But the round that killed the HT was basically a direct hit. Something few people realize is just how weak halftracks are in terms of protection. Doesn't take much to knock them out realistically. They were designed to withstand light small arms fire and that is that. A US .50cal can take out an HT fairly easily.

Steve

[cannon]

In turn 8 Fion loses 2 halftracks one to mortar fire and one to a bazooka team. In turn 9 Martin sees the smoke columns. Is this another example of the FOW. I mean that it took awhile before the smoke from the burning halftracks was visible from other locations on the battlefield? If so, very cool attention to detail.

Robert

[Stephen Smith]

I have a few general, hard to categorize questions.

1) I'm pretty sure I understand how woods work-there are woods 'areas' represented by a variable number of tree symbols, and the woods 'areas' have affects on movement/LOS etc. However, I can't really distinguish where woods 'areas' are on the screenshots. I assume they are portrayed by slightly darker areas on the ground (ie. shadowed snow, or green-tinted snow, or something) which isn't reflected very accurately when the screenshots are sent to TGN and then downloaded by me (in other words, I am assuming the players during the game can easily identify the woodline, and the areas of light, medium, and heavy trees). Is this accurate? If I am expected to 'see' wooded areas in the snow from the screenshots, well, I can't. Perhaps you should consider a darker tint to the shading of wooded ground to make sure it is visible to the player.

2) The hedges and walls seem too short (they almost look like sidewalks). I suspect it may be caused by the fact that the players are inflating the sizes of their men/vehicles so we can see them better on the screenshots, but I am not sure of this.

3) How are the time/distance relationships working out? I have noticed that we are now in turn 10 of the game, and have had several attacks, several firefights, and called in several artillery barrages. That is utterly unrealistic (we have probably seen two hours worth of action in these ten turns). However, I don't see that as a problem-a realistic portrayal of warfare (particularly at the one minute per turn scale!!) would be a lot of turns of nothing happening, waiting for your troops to react. Rather than realistic, I imagine you are aiming for 'immersive'-seemingly realistic occurences which are compressed for excitement's sake. Is that the case, and are you happy with the way the battle is going from this perspective?

4) Similarly, I have noticed that the men and vehicles are increased in size (presumably so we can see them in the screenshots) so that the distance that the units are firing (or not firing) doesn't seem

plausible-on some screenshots, I see a sherman, and see german halftracks, and think to myself-that sherman ought to be destroying that column!!! (note for the players-this is an example only-I'm not giving away a hidden sherman, or anything). What is probably actually happening is the vehicle silhouettes are inflated, so that they only appear to be 100m apart-at 'realistic sizes,' they will appear to be further apart (or even out of range, as they apparently are). At normal silhouette sizes, does the battlefield 'look' right? Do you quickly scan the battlefield and vehicles look to be 6 m or so long? Or at least, are units scaled properly so you can quickly judge ranges between them (for firing, for moving, etc) reasonably accurately?

Steve

[Ben Galanti]

I've got a quick question about Martin's bazooka's. They seem to be whiffing an awful lot (especially turn 11). Were they just that inaccurate? Or are all of these shots at extreme range against moving targets? Or does Martin just suck? Just wondering...

[Mike D]

Steve,

Glad to hear the latest Sherman immobilization was the result of a bug and that it is going to be fixed.

Mike D

aka Mikester

[Guest PatB_TGN]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I've got a quick question about Martin's bazooka's. They seem to be whiffing an awful lot (especially turn 11). Were they just that inaccurate? Or are all of these shots at extreme range against moving targets? Or does Martin just suck?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Martin is using Realistic +2 or there abouts. The shots are at, roughly, 125-150 meters. Bazooka's have an extreme effective range of 200 meters. Since the halftrack is in motion, it's making them harder to connect with. Martin did get in a few close rounds, though! I bet next turn (I have not seen the report), Martin toasts that halftrack.

-Patrick

[Guest Big Time Software]

Ben, luck, skill, and weapon accuracy are all a part of what is going on here. Also I think a couple of the teams were pretty rattled on the northern flank. So there can be lots of reasons why things are being missed.

IMHO, the real variable in the examples you are looking at are vehicle size and speed. The HTs are smallish and the ones Martin missed were all going at top speed. The one he hit in the woods was done with the first shot as the vehicle was going slowly after just rounding a corner.

Steve

[Lee]

Man, I am really addicted to these battle reports.

Need more reports, feed me! 8)

About los in CM, what if your los is partially

blocked by light trees but you can still see an

enemy unit, will the interface tell you that you have

los but it's only at 80% (or whatever the correct % is)

of what a full clear los would be?

[Guest Big Time Software]

Stephen,

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>However, I can't really distinguish where woods 'areas' are on the screenshots<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

All I can say is that you can tell the difference when actually playing the game without difficulty. The ground areas, specifically, are much darker in person. JPG compression lessons the difference between the two to a great extent, especially white. Still, summer is a WHOLE lot easier to see because we can realistically make the contrast of the graphics much greater. Only so much you can do with shades of white

Both Fionn and Martin are playing with the Trees set to "Sparse". This is the lowest density besides "Off". If you look at the shot and see a tree, that entire area is some sort of woods. Depending on tree type you can tell which is which. Also, the LOS, LOF, and movement tools tells you exactly what terrain is what.

Check out our screenshots to see pics of trees set to "Full". They are in the Combat Mission area.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The hedges and walls seem too short (they almost look like sidewalks). I suspect it may be caused by the fact that the players are inflating the sizes of their men/vehicles so we can see them better on the screenshots, but I am not sure of this.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Partly because of the camera angle, and mostly because neither is playing with the units scaled 1:1 (generally useless to play this way). The real height of a wall and hedge is, I think 3 feet? In any case, the game system knows the height and it is realistic.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>How are the time/distance relationships working out? I have noticed that we are now in turn 10 of the game, and have had several attacks, several firefights, and called in several artillery barrages. That is utterly unrealistic (we have probably seen two hours worth of action in these ten turns).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Fundamentally, whole heatedly, and absolutely disagree with this statement. Combat is fast and furious in real life. Very, very few fights last for more than an hour of sustained combat. They involved all sorts of elements, such as tank advances, tank duels, artillery, airstrikes, attacks and counter attacks, etc. A "battle" for a town or village usually consists of many engagements of about 1hr length over a period of half a day or greater.

If you look at the game more closely I think you will see that a whole lot less has happened than you think. Here is a short list:

Fionn has advanced his tanks about 300 meters. Martin hasn't even moved his.

Fionn has STILL not got a platoon and a armored car to move more than about 100m down a ROAD.

Martin has STILL not got to more than the first row of houses in the village, some 100+m from his starting positions.

Fionn attempted to do a local counter attack (bad idea!) and didn't get more than about 20m, yet the whole action took about 2 minutes to execute on the run and he is still feeling the effects from it.

There have been exactly 4 off board bombardments. 2x81mm mortars fired for about 4-6 minutes on a single spot. The other one, the 105, has fired for about 3-4 minutes on the town. There was adjustment fire with about 30second delays after each limited correction. Fionn also called down a small bombardment of one position and then called it off.

Fionn's main infantry, driven in halftracks (i.e. not foot sloggers) is just getting to Martin's first line of resistance, some 400m+ from his jump off positions.

So all this action has carried Fionn forward about 300m to 400m, and Martin hasn't gotten more than about 100m off the starting line. There has been only 3 bombardments, 2 of which were concentrated on the same area. I am really curious to know why this seems so unrealistic?

This battle is meant to simulate the final push on a village that has been hammered for days, if not weeks. It is not supposed to simulate a skirmish where each side exchanges a few shots and calls it a day, but a concentrated assault by both sides. In such real life battles entire companies ceased to exist in real life. I read all the time about platoons being wiped out, and I mean down to one or two men, in just a few minutes of combat, or a village or town being won within 20 minutes even though the whole battle before that lasted days. That is the reality of warfare from WWII on. Lots of short, quick, and deadly encounters.

For some good reading on the reality of time, I would suggest Against the Panzers. I have some problems with the book for many reasons, but the speed, carnage, and finality of the attacks are written with great detail. An even better book is Closing with the Enemy.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Is that the case, and are you happy with the way the battle is going from this perspective?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Charles, myself, Fionn, and Martin are all VERY happy with the way the battle is going from the perspective of realism, yes

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Similarly, I have noticed that the men and vehicles are increased in size (presumably so we can see them in the screenshots)...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, it is more so they can see what is going on. Playing at 1:1 scale on a 72dpi monitor with a 2000m x 800m map is impossible to do. Anything not in your immediate field of view simply won't be visible. This is the fault of the VERY low pixel density of monitors and there isn't a thing we can do except increase the size of the units are decrease the size of the battlefields and number of units. We would also have to make the game overhead only as perspective distorts and shrinks stuff. So either you play with units scaled up most of the time (I use +1) or you don't see what is happening.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>At normal silhouette sizes, does the battlefield 'look' right? Do you quickly scan the battlefield and vehicles look to be 6 m or so long? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

At 1:1 scale everything is scaled at 1:1, so yes, it all looks very correct But as stated above, this is impossible to play with as you can't see jack squat off in the distance.

In terms of judging distance it is REALLY easy. I can do it without looking at the meter indicator on any of the tools no problemo. The indicator is very useful though, especially if you are trying to figure out if something is within range or not (not to mention LOS).

Steve

[Guest Big Time Software]

Lee, yes, LOS can be partially blocked. What it does is affect the quality of your LOS. This means that you have less of a chance of hitting the enemy unit. Also LOS degrades over distance.

The LOS tool shows you exactly where the stuff starts to obscure your LOS. The LOS line changes colors to show where things are partially or totally blocked.

Steve

[Stephen Smith]

Followup on the problem with time/distance relationships.

After reading your response, I both kind of agree and kind of disagree with you on the time/distance relationship. YOu are correct, travel distances of 3-400 m are probably reasonable, and it is possible that three or four artillery strikes are possible within ten minutes. It may even be true that, since CM isn't simulating any prep time, or movement to contact time, then the actual 'fire back and forth until one side is dead' time may be as short as 20 minutes. The actual events that have occurred could plausibly occur in the ten turns of the game.

But CM is simulating more than physical events. It is also simulating DECISIONS on the part of the (in this scenario) bn (roughly) commander. And in that case, the time is far too compressed. Because as part of that ten minutes, the above mentioned events aren't the only things that occurred. There were also several decisions made (and communicated down to the team level). I won't be too specific to avoid giving away anything to either player, but, for example, 1) artillery was fired at several different places. The DECISION to fire that artillery in the given places, and not others, based on intelligence of enemy strength and location, presumably the artillery was corrected, and many of the results of those barrages were communicated to you, the bn commander to factore into your defensive or offensive plans. Realistically, maybe pretargetted artillery would have hit, the bn commander may have been able to talk to one company commander during that time, to get a garbled and inaccurate initial assessment of damage ("I see smoke, it might be a vehicle. It sounds like 3rd platoon is getting hit." 2) One or both sides considered shifting their strength to react to the developing situation, AFTER firing for a few turns. Realistically, the front line platoons may have begun firing, the company commander may have heard the noise, and is trying to raise the platoon leader on the radio. The Bn commander may not know anything has even happened-or if he does, its because he tried to call the company commander on the radio and can't get anybody (because the CO is busy yelling at the PL) 3)The american bazooka or MG teams have fired, been fired upon, and surrendered to German units 100 m away. Those German units captured the teams and continued down the road with other firefights. Realistically, perhaps the bazooka team fired. He was fired on in return. Perhaps he panicked and surrendered. If dismounted infantry captured him, they just ran 100 m, are either clearing the surrounding woods or are catching their breath and getting a drink of water. they have not moved on to engage in other firefights further down the road yet 4) the american commander has 'learned' of their surrender, and has been forced to factor in their loss into his defensive plans. Realistically, the platoon leader adjacent might know of it, because he saw it happen. He might have communicated it to his company commander. IF both of those things happened, the co is probably to busy running his company, and the bn net is swamped anyway, so that information has not yet reached the bn commander. The bn plan could in no way take advantage of the knowledge of the surrender of a bazooka team 6 minutes after it happened.

I realize part of the problem is due to the difference scales of simulation mentioned before. We don't really want to simulate a bn commander, and have essentially 3 or 4 maneuver elements to command (companies) with all other elements moving automatically (perhaps by the computer AI). We want to be bn commander, co commanders, platoon leaders, squad leaders, and even Tank commanders simultaneously. But THIS fact allows much more to happen in a given amount of time than would realistically. Essentially, you are correct. If CM merely simulates the 20 minute actions on an objective, where soldiers are either obeying SOPs or the OPORD, then it could happen in a 20 minute timeframe. But if CM is simulating actions/reactions on the part of several different levels of command (which it has to do in order to be a fun game), then the action in the game is too compressed. This is by no means a bad thing. But it is unrealistic.

steve

Steve

[Stephen Smith]

Followup on the problem with time/distance relationships.

After reading your response, I both kind of agree and kind of disagree with you on the time/distance relationship. YOu are correct, travel distances of 3-400 m are probably reasonable, and it is possible that three or four artillery strikes are possible within ten minutes. It may even be true that, since CM isn't simulating any prep time, or movement to contact time, then the actual 'fire back and forth until one side is dead' time may be as short as 20 minutes. The actual events that have occurred could plausibly occur in the ten turns of the game.

But CM is simulating more than physical events. It is also simulating DECISIONS on the part of the (in this scenario) bn (roughly) commander. And in that case, the time is far too compressed. Because as part of that ten minutes, the above mentioned events aren't the only things that occurred. There were also several decisions made (and communicated down to the team level). I won't be too specific to avoid giving away anything to either player, but, for example, 1) artillery was fired at several different places. The DECISION to fire that artillery in the given places, and not others, based on intelligence of enemy strength and location, presumably the artillery was corrected, and many of the results of those barrages were communicated to you, the bn commander to factore into your defensive or offensive plans. Realistically, maybe pretargetted artillery would have hit, the bn commander may have been able to talk to one company commander during that time, to get a garbled and inaccurate initial assessment of damage ("I see smoke, it might be a vehicle. It sounds like 3rd platoon is getting hit." 2) One or both sides considered shifting their strength to react to the developing situation, AFTER firing for a few turns. Realistically, the front line platoons may have begun firing, the company commander may have heard the noise, and is trying to raise the platoon leader on the radio. The Bn commander may not know anything has even happened-or if he does, its because he tried to call the company commander on the radio and can't get anybody (because the CO is busy yelling at the PL) 3)The american bazooka or MG teams have fired, been fired upon, and surrendered to German units 100 m away. Those German units captured the teams and continued down the road with other firefights. Realistically, perhaps the bazooka team fired. He was fired on in return. Perhaps he panicked and surrendered. If dismounted infantry captured him, they just ran 100 m, are either clearing the surrounding woods or are catching their breath and getting a drink of water. they have not moved on to engage in other firefights further down the road yet 4) the american commander has 'learned' of their surrender, and has been forced to factor in their loss into his defensive plans. Realistically, the platoon leader adjacent might know of it, because he saw it happen. He might have communicated it to his company commander. IF both of those things happened, the co is probably to busy running his company, and the bn net is swamped anyway, so that information has not yet reached the bn commander. The bn plan could in no way take advantage of the knowledge of the surrender of a bazooka team 6 minutes after it happened.

I realize part of the problem is due to the difference scales of simulation mentioned before. We don't really want to simulate a bn commander, and have essentially 3 or 4 maneuver elements to command (companies) with all other elements moving automatically (perhaps by the computer AI). We want to be bn commander, co commanders, platoon leaders, squad leaders, and even Tank commanders simultaneously. But THIS fact allows much more to happen in a given amount of time than would realistically. Essentially, you are correct. If CM merely simulates the 20 minute actions on an objective, where soldiers are either obeying SOPs or the OPORD, then it could happen in a 20 minute timeframe. But if CM is simulating actions/reactions on the part of several different levels of command (which it has to do in order to be a fun game), then the action in the game is too compressed. This is by no means a bad thing. But it is unrealistic.

steve

Steve

[Mike Oberly]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I won't be too specific to avoid giving away anything to either player<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Since neither player is allowed to read this thread during the game,be as specific as you want.You won't be giving anything away.

I sort of agree with you about the action being so compressed,but it's a problem with any tactical game of this scale.

Mike

[fatherof4]

Stephen, In defense of the good folks of BTS, I think the term "unrealistic" is the wrong way to put it because that word has a lot of negative connotations in wargaming circles.

You need to read the background for why BTS made the "unrealistic" decision for the batallion commander to know everything. There was an eloquent discussion on a few weeks ago on this board.

I think that decision was correct and I can't wait to get my hands on CM.

[Guest Big Time Software]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>But if CM is simulating actions/reactions on the part of several different levels of command (which it has to do in order to be a fun game), then the action in the game is too compressed. This is by no means a bad thing. But it is unrealistic.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have to say this is still incorrect. While I agree that since one person (or AI) is commanding all forces the coordination is higher than in real life, I do not agree at all that the time scale is too "compressed". I have volumes of books that show that you are not in the right here. Sure, the US force can act on knowledge that it shouldn't have. But this doesn't necessarily speed up the game. Gaining that knowledge might actually cause him to NOT act when he otherwise would have without that knowledge. Knowing and doing are not directly linked to predictable results. See what I am getting at here? You are assuming that since there is greater knowledge that translates into unrealistic compression of the battle's timeframe. This is an assumption that does not hold water simply because of my point that x fact does not mean y result (i.e. faster action). And don't forget that BOTH sides have access to more coordination than is realistically possible. So if the US reacts by moving something here, the Germans might see that and move something else to counter it. This largely balances things out.

But don't take my word for it, look at historical examples...

Battles, even complex ones involving lots of troops in motion, were conducted in short periods of time. One off the top of my head is the battle for Schmidt in the Hürtgenwald. In just about 2 hours a nearly REGIMENTAL sized German force wiped out the better part of a US battalion an retake a sizable town from three sides in thick woods in moderately bad weather. This included several hundred rounds of artillery being called down on several different points at different times, as well as the use of armor. In CM this would be either one VERY long (yawn) battle or two or three smaller ones of a campaign (in fact I intended to make a campaign out of this battle).

What you talk about with the hesitation and unrealistic speed of decision is not necessarily an unrealistic part of a battle like the one being simulated here. In real life these sorts of coordinated battles did happen, and on even larger scales. That is because Jo Blow Squad did not sit around waiting for Major Battalion to bark an order at him. If he did he would likely be sitting on his ass all day long Once a battle like this was started the battalion commander had little influence. All lower components went on vague orders (i.e. take that town! Hold at all costs!) and their own initiative. So who is to say what they could and could not do in real life? Hell, even with this über control I have seen Fionn (and myself ) do things like crowd too many men in once place, call down artillery in a dumb spot, cause traffic jams, etc. So this stuff is not absent from the game.

Again, the Human (or AI) can coordinate things better, but this is balanced out because BOTH sides are coordinating better. If this were not so you would see unrealistic advance rates for sure (i.e. Fionn would be in the village by now). So if you buy the fact that the advance rates are realistic, and that the casualties are realistic, then you HAVE to buy into the fact that the time scale is realistic. You still might say that the use of artillery is unrealistic, but you are just plain wrong here. I didn't spend a couple thousand dollars on books to just let them sit around gathering dust (not to mention the boku bucks to get my History degree ).

Also keep in mind that the current time limit for the scenario being played out is 60 minutes. So you have seen about 1/6th of the entire game and Fionn is less than 1/4th of the way to the village. The battle will NOT be over in 20 minutes for sure. I am betting more like 40. I still can't see why this is unrealistic for a 2 company sized force.

I wish I could get Fionn and Martin in on this discussion, but we had better wait until the battle is over. Both alter between thinking they are doing badly and doing great, so I don't want them to get involved in this discussion

Steve

P.S. Closing this thread up to start a new one. It is too big!