Christmas Bone

[Michael Emrys]

Troops are transported on railways, not highways.

The Autobahns were a great boon to the invading Allied armies in 1945, allowing a much more rapid movement of men and supplies into the interior of the country than otherwise might have been possible. Photos are quite dramatic with streams of Allies heading eastward using all four lanes and the middle ground packed with POWs streaming westward.

Michael

[Dr.Fusselpulli]

True, but this was the same problem that all armies of that era had to a greater or lesser degree, including the German army. Most German infantry marched wherever they were going if there wasn't a train available to take them. The bulk of their artillery and supplies were pulled by horses.

Michael

Yeah, I know. But at least, they have a lot of halftracks (15252 of the sdkfz.251 and 7232 of the smaller sdkfz.250). While the russians only have some american lend&lease halftracks, and a few captured german ones.

Without the possibility of tankriders, an eastern front game on the greater maps in the new combat mission would be horrible.

At least both sides have some trucks.

By the way, what is about Krads? The Zündapp KS 750 or BMW R 75. Motorcycles would be awesome. Expecially on the eastern front.

I know its difficult because of the different behavior of the vehicle and the new animations but nevertheless, this would be awesome.

[stikkypixie]

I don't believe the things you listed are relevant to tactical rigidity. Tactical rigidity is more about not being allowed to change your overall plan if things go wrong. You are not allowed to retreat when attacks are going badly. You are not to tactically withdraw when defences are going badly.

Ealy 1941 troops are inexperienced and won't make the right decisions but they will continue their attacks until called off or demoralized. They are do not require constant baby sitting, they won't crawl back to their commanders because they don't see them.

If you want to "do" tactical rigidity, you're going to have to impose limitations on yourself and not on the game.

sburke & MikeyD

I was just using the 1941 Soviet troops as an example but you could easily say that about the newly minted 1945 German troops being thrown into the line.

I am not sure how you would model tactical rigidity. The command delay was a means to an end but while not a perfect one, it did make you think about things more. I.e. Having reserves near the back of the map as your units in the thick of things would not react fast enough. Those 120 second command delays were a real headache to deal with.

You do have options to model this type of rigidity

1. Command Delays
   
2. Removing allowable actions (e.g. no assault with green troops, just move or fast for conscripts)
   
3. No splitting of squads
   
4. Units always want to move towards commanders if out of command (now I am just throwing out some ideas)
   
5. Conscript Units no longer show up if they are outside of command control (like in Iron mode but with the possibility of appearing again
   
6. You can only provide orders for them once every two minutes instead of immediately (RT) or each minute (WEGO)
   

[Vinnart]

This is a rather long thread so forgive me if the question was asked, and I missed it.

What will be the minimum system requirements to play a 30k map in cm3.0?

[Sergei]

This is a rather long thread so forgive me if the question was asked, and I missed it.

What will be the minimum system requirements to play a 30k map in cm3.0?

Minimum is Nintendo Gamecube, Wii is recommended.

Nobody knows, actually! Given how the game performance currently works, I suspect you will be able to play on a max size map on most systems that currently run the engine - but the outcome will heavily depend on the map layout, your video settings and how much action is going on on the map.

[Michael Emrys]

Nobody knows, actually! Given how the game performance currently works, I suspect you will be able to play on a max size map on most systems that currently run the engine - but the outcome will heavily depend on the map layout, your video settings and how much action is going on on the map.

That may be true as long as people follow Steve's recommendation and don't play with more troops and vehicles than they normally do at present. If your system plays well with a certain OOB now, it will probably handle play on the larger maps as well. You might have to turn some graphics options down a notch or two, but it should play. But if you insist on filling those big maps up with a regiment or so on both sides, you will probably need whatever is the cutting edge now in hardware.

Michael

[Canada Guy]

Stikkypixie,

I do agree with you but I am thinking more of the feel than what is actually happening. I am thinking more of the ends and not the means. I still believe that conscript troops should not be able to act out complex orders and to do them instantaneously. Telling an elite unit to do something, they should do it. Telling a conscript unit to do it should take more time and should be simpler instructions. E.g. I do not think conscripts should be able to quick move as that is simulating fire and movement. Perhaps have them move or fire but not be able to do both. Being in C&C should alter this for the better assuming you have a competent commander.

One idea would be to have a count of orders you can give a unit. E.g. You could give a conscript unit 2 orders (so they could run towards the nearest wall for cover or move towns a location and perhaps fire at that location) a in C&C would allow another order (+1 for a total of 3) elite units may have 6 and in C&C 7. So, this would allow for limited movement to save yourself but would only allow average to elite units to carry out some crazy commands.

Yes, the Italians do feel different from other nations and I liked that there was some nationality distinction. Now we just need some experience/training distinction.

[Michael Emrys]

I do not think conscripts should be able to quick move as that is simulating fire and movement.

Are you sure about that? I may have missed something badly, but I have never seen any of my units using quick move fire during that movement. Could you be thinking of assault movement?

Michael

[Vanir Ausf B]

You have missed something badly. Individual soldiers within units using Quick move will semi-randomly pause to fire at spotted enemy units within effective weapon range. Although in my experience this is far more likely to result in the quick moving soldier getting hit than whatever he's shooting at so maybe conscripts should be made more likely to do it.

[womble]

You have missed something badly. Individual soldiers within units using Quick move will semi-randomly pause to fire at spotted enemy units within effective weapon range. Although in my experience this is far more likely to result in the quick moving soldier getting hit than whatever he's shooting at so maybe conscripts should be made more likely to do it.

Sure, but they don't fire while moving (though no pTruppe does, to my recollection; they listened to their marksmanship instructor). Why couldn't a Conscript grade pTruppen do that? They should be more likely to do it at the "wrong" time, definitely, but if they're high motivation, and their morale state hasn't been degraded yet, you could easily argue that they might stop and return fire more than an experienced or trained trooper, or even (uselessly) return fire (inaccurately) while still running. Given how I think the "terrain save" modifier works, they will be more likely to be mown down while taking that firing pause.

Quick is a pace as much as it is an engagement posture.

Actually, that sparks another query: given that infantry unit subelements can stop to fire, how far off is the implementation of proper "firing stops" for AFVs...?

[stikkypixie]

Stikkypixie,

I do agree with you but I am thinking more of the feel than what is actually happening. I am thinking more of the ends and not the means. I still believe that conscript troops should not be able to act out complex orders and to do them instantaneously. Telling an elite unit to do something, they should do it. Telling a conscript unit to do it should take more time and should be simpler instructions. E.g. I do not think conscripts should be able to quick move as that is simulating fire and movement. Perhaps have them move or fire but not be able to do both. Being in C&C should alter this for the better assuming you have a competent commander.

One idea would be to have a count of orders you can give a unit. E.g. You could give a conscript unit 2 orders (so they could run towards the nearest wall for cover or move towns a location and perhaps fire at that location) a in C&C would allow another order (+1 for a total of 3) elite units may have 6 and in C&C 7. So, this would allow for limited movement to save yourself but would only allow average to elite units to carry out some crazy commands.

Yes, the Italians do feel different from other nations and I liked that there was some nationality distinction. Now we just need some experience/training distinction.

I don't know, it sounds to me awfully forced. Unless you are fighting with civilians like me, conscripts should be able to handle all orders you give them if their morale permit it. After all they know how to handle a gun. Most orders consists of go there and shoot that anyway.

What you should see is troops not doing anything unless they are not told to do so because of fear or inexperience. But you have that already in the game, my conscripts are cowering 90% of the time, so in my opinion the difference in training is definitely there.

[Sergei]

I don't know, it sounds to me awfully forced. Unless you are fighting with civilians like me, conscripts should be able to handle all orders you give them if their morale permit it. After all they know how to handle a gun. Most orders consists of go there and shoot that anyway.

It's not about ability to understand and carry out orders, it's about getting sensible orders there, command and control. Commanding troops is difficult and time consuming, lest you want to end up with a "charge of the light brigade" type misunderstanding. More so with inexperienced troops with little room for improvisation in their heads. I can just point and click an out of command squad to give it a convoluted path across city streets to a faraway target and then take quarters in a specific building's second floor facing north-west, but in reality that wouldn't work too well without telepathy...

[stikkypixie]

It's not about ability to understand and carry out orders, it's about getting sensible orders there, command and control. Commanding troops is difficult and time consuming, lest you want to end up with a "charge of the light brigade" type misunderstanding. More so with inexperienced troops with little room for improvisation in their heads. I can just point and click an out of command squad to give it a convoluted path across city streets to a faraway target and then take quarters in a specific building's second floor facing north-west, but in reality that wouldn't work too well without telepathy...

I understand that, but the orders given in CM are more than orders coming from the top, they are also things troops would do without orders (the player wearing different hats and all that).

I still feel it's not a big problem, because although you can give the same convoluted orders to conscripts and elite troops, the execution of these orders will be entirely different. Unless you are giving orders in a training scenario, the conscripts will stop following the orders on the first sign of trouble. The end result is that de facto you can only give the simplest of orders to them.

[Aragorn2002]

So the first Eastern front game will be about Bagration. I wonder what the second will cover. Oder Front? Eastern Prussia? Hungary? The Baltic? Too soon of course to speculate, but a man can dream.

[Childress]

Points gleaned on tank riders:

The tank desant doctrine was primarily employed by the Russians who, it's alleged, lacked sufficient personnel carriers or failed to master the intricacies of tank–infantry co-operation. Some Soviet historians, like Zaloga, judged the tactic wasteful; costly in men and the suppressive fire laid down by the riders ineffectual.

German troops rarely (41-42) and Allied troops apparently never resorted to the desant doctrine. Tanks functioned as pre-engagement taxis only.

One notices that the troops in the video are sitting upright as in church pews, in reality they tended to shelter as best they could behind the turret unless a matter of simple transport.

how to take screenshots

The tankodesantniki normally rode into battle under smoke screens and typically jumped off a kilometer from the enemy line. Or earlier if under heavy MG or mortar fire- unlike the video. Red Army doctrine stipulated cavalry support, notably in the early years of the war.

[Michael Emrys]

You have missed something badly. Individual soldiers within units using Quick move will semi-randomly pause to fire at spotted enemy units within effective weapon range.

Okay. Thanks. I will be on the lookout for that. I guess I wasn't thinking in terms of individual soldiers but of the whole team or squad. What you say makes sense.

Michael

[Michael Emrys]

So the first Eastern front game will be about Bagration. I wonder what the second will cover. Oder Front? Eastern Prussia? Hungary? The Baltic? Too soon of course to speculate, but a man can dream.

I think the plan is that the modules to the first family of East Front games will run in pretty much that order until the fall of Berlin. The second family will begin in the middle of 1943 and run until the spring of '44 in however many modules. The third family from the middle of '42 to the spring of '43. The final family will cover Barbarossa through the end of the Soviet winter offensive.

So four families, each one covering the year before the preceding family. Confused yet? Actually there is a very good reason for taking them in that order as it eases production, with each family able to reuse many if not most of the models of the previous one.

Michael

[sfhand]

... Unless you are giving orders in a training scenario, the conscripts will stop following the orders on the first sign of trouble. The end result is that de facto you can only give the simplest of orders to them.

This... and even with the simplest of orders they will be ineffective.

[lurrp]

Bagration grogs will have to forgive me here, but was the quality of the Soviet Army in '44 really that bad? All this talk of conscripts and how to limit the Soviet effectiveness makes it seem like their army didn't change much from Barbarossa in terms of quality. And on the subject of conscripts, I think the game models low-quality troops perfectly.

[JasonC]

Childress quoting Zaloga "the suppressive fire laid down by the riders ... ineffectual."

This reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of the tactical role of tank riders. Apparently the writer believes they are meant to fire their small arms while mounted to prevent enemy infantry from shooting at the tank with infantry AT. This gets the whole idea of the riders completely wrong.

The firepower component of the team is the tank. Its MGs and main gun dwarf the firepower of a few SMGs, especially at range. The riders are there to counter stealth on the part of enemy infantry, and to create a fire discipline dilemma for the defenders that has no good solution. The tactic they specifically counter is the defenders staying deep in their holes and not firing at all, to avoid exposing themselves to the tanks.

Tanks alone have no good way of dealing with that defender tactic. But with riders, they just dismount at 50 yards and approach on foot with SMGs and grenades.

When instead the defenders fire to prevent that, the riders still jump off, but then the tanks destroy the shooting defenders with their superior firepower and their armored impunity, from beyond infantry AT range.

In close terrain, the riders can also dismount a few to go first as scouts, send eyes through buildings or woods or across a water obstacle before any tanks attempt any movement that makes them visible to potential enemies on the other side, and the like. That is, they do battlefield recon as an economy of force thing and as a stealth thing.

Those are the only roles tanks need infantry for, tactically. Everything else they can do for themselves.

[Childress]

Wiki:

The use of tank desant was only prescribed within the first kilometer of the forward edge of the combat area for only the simplest of tactical mission objectives, since the circumstances would be difficult for the troops engaged.

Riding on tanks during actual combat is very dangerous. Tank riders are very vulnerable to machine gun and high explosive fire, and the high silhouette of most tanks would draw enemy fire. Smoke and covering fire may be used to reduce the hazards. Tank riding is mostly used when troops need to move faster than is possible on foot and there is a shortage of motor transport or armoured personnel carriers.

Usually, the infantry and their heavy weapons were assigned to specific tanks well before the execution of the mission. This allowed the infantry to become familiar with the tanks and train with the tank crews. Support platforms for the heavy weapons were sometimes attached to the tanks to allow firing on the move. Ropes were attached to provide hand-holds for the infantry. The number of infantry assigned to a tank depended on the class of the tank; the usual numbers were:

Heavy tank, 10-12 soldiers

Medium tank, 8-10 soldiers

Light tank, 5-6 soldiers

Tank desant would be used in such a way as to ensure surprise, approaching during a snow storm or mist or employing either smoke grenades or a smoke screen prepared by sappers or laid down by artillery.

Simulating this tactic for the Soviets seems to suggest that squads be splittable if smaller tanks can only accommodate 5-6 men. Maybe BF fudges this. The article also specifies that they riders would dismount not at but within the kilometer radius, as Jason points out. Tank desant was best employed by nations with a lot of manpower to spend.

One assumes that the game will allot a certain number of infantry slots for each AFV. The first slots filled should offer the best cover. Obviously a fully manned squad would find achieving maximum protection problematical. Will riders dismount under fire? Not if the vehicles are on on Fast but only on Hunt? This is gonna be challenging.

[Andrew H.]

There are also interesting spotting issues - if the infantry spots an enemy unit that the tank doesn't see, does this spot get conveyed to the tank? I.e., if there is infantry hidden in a hole 50 meters away, do the desantniks need to deal with it themselves, or can they say, "Hey, comrade tank commander, there are some fascists hiding in a hole 50 meters to the right; can you take care of them?"

[MikeyD]

The use of tank desant was only prescribed within the first kilometer of the forward edge of the combat area

.

That's not really all that different from recommended use of half-tracks in the U.S. Army. Half-tracks charging through enemy lines with guns blazing may be good for a Sgt. Rock comic book but not so good in real life. When the eastern front game comes out we'll be able to see for ourselves how sound tank rider tactics were.

[Aragorn2002]

Bagration grogs will have to forgive me here, but was the quality of the Soviet Army in '44 really that bad? All this talk of conscripts and how to limit the Soviet effectiveness makes it seem like their army didn't change much from Barbarossa in terms of quality. And on the subject of conscripts, I think the game models low-quality troops perfectly.

My impression is that the Red army of 1944/45 was of a higher quality than the Wehrmacht. The Germans had lost too many veterans after the collapse of Army Group Centre and the following defeats.

[Glubokii Boy]

+1 Erwin

The large maps are what I am most looking forward to and combine that with the ammo dumps I am a happy chappy!

It will be interesting to see how the large battles unfold as to when you commit your reserves or when to counter attack.

I am wondering if there are any plans for triggers in engine version 3? it would be great if the AI could counter-attack especially with the bigger maps.

We definitely need ai triggers at this point if we are going to see large extended map battles. What's the point at having the capabilities if no one uses them due to size overload and ai that can't respond. It would be nice to have support for these large maps, like coop play, or a friendly ai system that you could give directives to and delegate objectives.

I'm really looking forward to the easternfront-games and the new features mentioned sounds very good but i can't help but to feel a little pessemistic about the future for the singleplayers unless one of the new features with 3.0 not yet mentioned is TRIGGERS...hopefully, hopefully !!