Suppression Test Results

[Pak40]

I've been ever curious about the effectiveness of suppression fire in CMBN. I decided to setup a series of tests after reading Bulletpoint's claim that "suppression doesn't work". I think Bulletpoint has since redacted his claim but I was still curious how effective supporting fire really is.

The setup for the tests is similar to Bulletpoint's example situation in a game that he was playing: A U.S. Airborne squad assaults a German Sniper in a building about 250m away. There is nothing between the Building and where the U.S. unit starts from - behind a bocage, it's all open ground.

The U.S. assaulting squad has fire support from 3 other units: Airborne Rifle squad, MG team, & a HQ support team with 6 rifles. These are 250m from the German unit. All U.S. units are Regular. The German Sniper is Veteran and has a spotter with a MP40. The sniper is in a modular building, i.e. one that offers the sniper team good protection.

I ran the test 9 times total but I changed support fire tactics:

Tests 1-3 : No support at all. Support units will remain hidden.

Tests 4-6 : Support Units fire on turn 1. Assault Sqd runs on Turn 1

Tests 7-9 : Support Untis fire on turns 1-4. Assault Sqd runs on Turn 3

Note: Tests 1-6 will only last the 1st turn which leaves the assaulting squad about 90 meters from the building. It's a good apples to apples comparison of "No Support fire vs Support Fire". Tests 7-9 was run until turn 4 which is when the assaulting squad got to the building.

-------------------------------

TURNS 1-3 : No Fire Support (only will span 1 turn)

TEST 1

Sniper shots fired: 10

Casualties Caused: 9

Sniper Status: OK (green)

TEST 2

Sniper shots fired: 10

Casualties Caused: 9 and 1 wounded

Sniper Status: OK (green)

TEST 3

Sniper shots fired: 10

Casualties Caused: 6 and 2 wounded

Sniper Status: OK (green)

----------------------

TESTS 4-6: Support Units area fire on turn 1 and Assault unit quick on turn 1(test only spans 1st turn)

TEST 4

Sniper shots fired: 2

Casualties Caused: 0

Sniper Status: Cautious (red Pinned)

TEST 5

Sniper shots fired: 2

Casualties Caused: 0

Sniper Status: Cautious (red Pinned)

TEST 6

Sniper shots fired: 4

Casualties Caused: 1

Sniper Status: Cautious (red Pinned)

-----------------------

TESTS 7-9 : Support units area fire turns 1-4. Assualt Sqd area fires turns 1-2 then quick runs on turn 3 and makes to the building on turn 4.

TEST 7

Sniper shots fired: 5 after turn 2, 1 turn 3, 0 turn 4

Casualties Caused: 0

Sniper Status: Cautious (red Pinned)

TEST 8

Sniper shots fired: 3 after turn 2, 5 turn 3, 2 turn 4

Casualties Caused: 0 casualties after turn 3, 6 casualties in turn 4 due to MP40 and a grenade

Sniper Status: Cautious (red Pinned)

TEST 9

Sniper shots fired: 0 after turn 4

Casualties Caused: 3 from MP40

Sniper Status: MP40 KIA, Nervous (red Pinned)

--------------------

CONCLUSION

There is a stark contrast between Tests 1-3 (no suppressing fire) and Tests 4-6(immediate suppressing fire). In the first three tests the sniper gets off 30 shots and hits a moving target 90% of the time, decimating the assault squad each time. In tests 4-6, he can only get off 8 shots total and causes only 1 casualty. It's quite clear that area fire, while not particularly lethal in this case, will cause an enemy to fire a lot less and make his shots a lot less effective.

Sustained area fire preparation (Tests 7-9) yielded similar results to tests 4-6 when the assaulting squad ran across the field. However, once the assault squad got within 50m the MP40 and hand grenades still caused significant casualties in two of the 3 tests.

[JoMac]

WOW ! in one test the Sharp hits a Moving Target 90% of the Time causing several Causalties, and another test having an MP40 causing 3 Casualties, and even more so due to Grenades...Now, I do believe Small Arms is overmoddled abit...Sigh :-(

That Squad ( IRL ) should have been able to get within Assault range ( losing 1-2 Casualties at most ) and able to take out both members of that Sharp Team.

Joe

[cool breeze]

WOW ! in one test the Sharp hits a Moving Target 90% of the Time causing several Causalties, and another test having an MP40 causing 3 Casualties, and even more so due to Grenades...Now, I do believe Small Arms is overmoddled abit...Sigh :-(

That Squad ( IRL ) should have been able to get within Assault range ( losing 1-2 Casualties at most ) and able to take out both members of that Sharp Team.

Joe

If he had used the assault team to shoot too at closer range there would have been fewer casualties but it was a test.

[YankeeDog]

WOW ! in one test the Sharp hits a Moving Target 90% of the Time causing several Causalties, and another test having an MP40 causing 3 Casualties, and even more so due to Grenades...Now, I do believe Small Arms is overmoddled abit...Sigh :-(

That Squad ( IRL ) should have been able to get within Assault range ( losing 1-2 Casualties at most ) and able to take out both members of that Sharp Team.

Joe

The first round of tests that show 90% hits are for the squad basically running blindly at the sniper, with absolutely no suppressive fire. That's just bad tactics. I understand why it was done as part of the test; it's a control. But it should not be viewed in any way indicative of the effectiveness of "Real Life" tactics in CM.

Hitting fully exposed man-sized targets at <250m with a decent scoped rifle for a Veteran shooter is gravy, even if the targets are moving. Also bear in mind that since the targets were moving towards the sniper, there was little lateral movement, which is the harder type of target movement to deal with for shooter.

Note that the snipers hit % went down to <10% once he was under suppressive fire.

As for the MP40 and grenade casualties incurred as the assault team got close, the assault team(s) should have set up another overwatch/fire support position and poured on more support fire as they got close to the building, rather than just running the last 50m into the building; this would have probably dramatically reduced (but not completely eliminated) the chance of the Sniper's security escort with the MP40 getting off an SMG burst or grenade before he was eliminated.

It's all about tactics. Use stupid tactics and you will take stupid casualties, Do thing right and you'll keep casualties to a minimum. Given the tactics used, the results in this test look about right to me.

[Pak40]

Hitting fully exposed man-sized targets at <250m with a decent scoped rifle for a Veteran shooter is gravy, even if the targets are moving. Also bear in mind that since the targets were moving towards the sniper, there was little lateral movement, which is the harder type of target movement to deal with for shooter.

I agree, even if though the targets are running they are easy pickings because they are running at the shooter. I'm not sure if CM models lateral vs. a gentle up/down movement, but that might be another interesting test.

As for the MP40 and grenade casualties incurred as the assault team got close, the assault team(s) should have set up another overwatch/fire support position and poured on more support fire as they got close to the building, rather than just running the last 50m into the building; this would have probably dramatically reduced (but not completely eliminated) the chance of the Sniper's security escort with the MP40 getting off an SMG burst or grenade before he was eliminated.

Absolutely. This was just purely a test to see if suppression fire worked (which I already knew it did) and to see relatively how effective it is. It's certainly not a test to find the best methods of assaulting a building with a sniper team in it.

However, I did run one more test which I didn't post: I ran a 10th test which was the same as tests 7-9 with the exception that the MG team that was part of the assault squad stops about 90m from the building to provide supporting fire. I didn't order the MG team to fire, just let him pick his own visual targets. The result was that the Sniper was KIA and the MP40 was cowering most of the time. I can't remember if the assault squad took any casualties but the result was certainly was the best of the Tests as far as getting an enormous amount of firepower on the target. I might test further to see what's ideal in this situation.

[Pak40]

LATERAL MOVEMENT TEST

Tests 1-3 in my original post yielded very high accuracy for the sniper. The theory is that there is little to no lateral movement of the the targets since they are running towards the sniper. This makes the targets easier to hit than if they were running across the map.

Test setup is identical to Tests 1-3 except that I have a squad (split into teams) running quick across the map not at the building were the sniper is. The distance is no more than 260m and no less than 240m at any given time the sniper shoots.

TEST 1

Sniper Shots: 7

Casualties Caused: 3

TEST 2

Sniper Shots: 6

Casualties Caused: 2

TEST 3 (Kar 98)

Sniper Shots: 5

Casualties Caused: 2

TEST 4

Sniper Shots: 6

Casualties Caused: 4

-------------------------

I suspected that the low rate of fire was caused by the constant long range. Possibly the lower hit % was cause by the distance also, so I ran the tests again with the squad closer to the building: 198m-138m

TEST 5

Sniper Shots: 12

Casualties Caused: 6

TEST 6 (Kar 98)

Sniper Shots: 6

Casualties Caused: 3

TEST 7

Sniper Shots: 12

Casualties Caused: 6

TEST 8

Sniper Shots: 11

Casualties Caused: 6

CONCLUSION

Accuracy has drastically been decreased both at the long range (46% hit) and the shorter range (51% hit). I can only assume that it's due to the lateral movement of the targets.

note: The game randomly picks which sniper weapon is used. Most of the time it is the Gewehr 43 but I've listed where the Kar 98 is used.

[Erwin]

Very useful tests.

Re the first set, am puzzled by the MP40 caused casualties in tests 7-9 Question: In tests 4-6, did the assaulting team never get to 50m range?

ie: What happened that enabled the US to suffer so much in 7-9 when one would have thought that suppression would have been more effective given the extra minutes of suppression fire.

[YankeeDog]

Very useful tests.

Re the first set, am puzzled by the MP40 caused casualties in tests 7-9 Question: In tests 4-6, did the assaulting team never get to 50m range?

ie: What happened that enabled the US to suffer so much in 7-9 when one would have thought that suppression would have been more effective given the extra minutes of suppression fire.

If I read the tests correctly, the MP40 & Grenade casualties in 7-9 all happened at less than 50m ("once the assault squad got within 50m the MP40 and hand grenades still caused significant casualties..."); in those tests the assaulting teams "quick runs on turn 3 and makes to the building on turn 4," so apparently the assault teams closed all the way into the building containing the sniper team.

So we're close combat casualties here. Ranged small arms suppression can reduce the likelihood of taking casualties in close combat assault, but IME, you really need to have a close team fire a few bursts of automatic weapons fire and ideally grenade(s) before you do final assault into a building. This still doesn't completely eliminate the possibility of a surviving enemy inside getting off a parting shot or grenade (nor should it), but does dramatically reduce the chance of taking casualties.

[Pak40]

Very useful tests.

Re the first set, am puzzled by the MP40 caused casualties in tests 7-9 Question: In tests 4-6, did the assaulting team never get to 50m range?

ie: What happened that enabled the US to suffer so much in 7-9 when one would have thought that suppression would have been more effective given the extra minutes of suppression fire.

I only ran them on the 1st turn and therefore the assault squad only covered about 150m (it takes two turns to cover that distance). I was more interested in the shot accuracy of the sniper with and without suppression. Assaulting a building is another issue all in itself. In test 7-9 I broke down the results so one can determine the # of shots after 2 turns of support fire, turn 3 when the assault team starts their run, and turn 4 when it reaches the building.

[Erwin]

This sort of info is gold re teaching how to play the game better. Thanks...

[Bulletpoint]

Thanks Pak40 for testing out my scenario, I really appreciate it.

As you said, I changed my statement soon after posting, but wasn't able to change the thread title.

What I forgot when I claimed suppression didn't work was that it's not only a matter of return fire or not. The amount of shots and their accuracy are affected too. But I just saw the sniper continuing to fire, so I assumed there was no suppressive effect at all. In hindsight, I realise that none of his shots actually hit anything.

Your test seems to confirm two additional interesting things that I suspected for some time:

1: More time for prep fire doesn't increase the suppression at all, compared to only doing 1 minute. So no point in burning time and ammo for that, apart from when trying to force the enemy to fall back (the "steel broom" tactic).

2: At close ranges, even heavily suppressed units "wake up" and return fire quite effectively. I suppose this is somewhat realistic, as when the enemy closes in, it's do or die.

[c3k]

LOL.

Thanks for running this test and sharing it.

Think about how friggin' detailed this game code is. Really. I think that the test shows that the game gets it exactly right.

Veteran sniper: men running right at him, easy shots and the men drop

Veteran sniper: targets moving laterally, ROF and accuracy drop

Incoming fire: suppressed and inaccurate when able to fire

As well, the number of shots and the rate seem spot on.

And all this happens without player intervention.

(This kind of magic from your computer is what sets BFC's coding/games apart, IMO.)

Ken

[Hister]

Yes, this is really great, superb game indeed. So excited to own it, really. Now if I only could persude my friend to get it for himself. He's reluctant due to 100 € price for the whole CMBN package but I know he would have liked it soooo much.

[JoMac]

Pak40,

If you still have the game file available ( if not, no big deal as I can run a similar later this week ) can you run the Test again but with Sniper Team @ Green ( w/+1 Leadership & Normal Motivation ) and Firing & Advancing Airborne @ Green ( w/+1 Leadership & High Motivation )...I'm also going to run identical test, but having enemy using an LMG Team instead of a Sharp Team.

I'm curious what the test results would be if using Green Troops vs. Vet, and having the Attacker always having High and Defender having Normal Motivations.

I've been play testing ( and changing variables like Motivation & Leadership ) and only using Conscript or Green troops ( Conscript for RL Conscript & Green troops, and Green for RL Regular or Vet troops ) when playing QB's\ Scenario's as I'm trying to better Simulate RL Casualties under same Battle Conditions.

[Pak40]

Thanks Pak40 for testing out my scenario, I really appreciate it.

No problem. I had to satisfy my own curiosity after all. I knew that suppression worked but was surprised it worked so well on the 1st turn.

Your test seems to confirm two additional interesting things that I suspected for some time:

1: More time for prep fire doesn't increase the suppression at all, compared to only doing 1 minute. So no point in burning time and ammo for that, apart from when trying to force the enemy to fall back (the "steel broom" tactic).

I wouldn't say that there's no more increased suppression. But it's definitely not as dramatic of an increase. The building that the sniper team was in located in was of the Modular type, which offers more protection than other buildings. If the building were one of the lighter varieties then I think the sustained fire would have more of an impact. Of course, this still needs testing . Also, If the supporting teams stay back at 250m and fire for several more turns I think the sniper team status would still be "cautious pinned". However, if you move those support units to within 100m then the firepower gets significantly higher and if that lasts for just a couple of turns then I think you'd see a change of status of the sniper team. I need to to some more testing!

2: At close ranges, even heavily suppressed units "wake up" and return fire quite effectively. I suppose this is somewhat realistic, as when the enemy closes in, it's do or die.

Yes, this is what's so deadly about close assaulting an enemy position. Even suppressed units realize that they have to defend themselves or run away. I recall that BF has stated in the past that unit's ROF go up when the enemy is closer.

[Pak40]

Pak40,

If you still have the game file available ( if not, no big deal as I can run a similar later this week ) can you run the Test again but with Sniper Team @ Green ( w/+1 Leadership & Normal Motivation ) and Firing & Advancing Airborne @ Green ( w/+1 Leadership & High Motivation )...I'm also going to run identical test, but having enemy using an LMG Team instead of a Sharp Team.

I'm curious what the test results would be if using Green Troops vs. Vet, and having the Attacker always having High and Defender having Normal Motivations.

Yes, I'll give a try with a green sniper. I also plan to test with a MG instead of a sniper team since this is probably a more likely encounter.

[Bil Hardenberger]

Your test seems to confirm two additional interesting things that I suspected for some time:

1: More time for prep fire doesn't increase the suppression at all, compared to only doing 1 minute. So no point in burning time and ammo for that, apart from when trying to force the enemy to fall back (the "steel broom" tactic).

Well, suppressing them for longer periods of time gives your maneuver element time to move safely into its assault position. You also do not want that unit to be unsuppressed and able to fall back before you can assault it and eliminate it. This is especially important when playing a human opponent. This is the FIX HIM component of the Four Fs

2: At close ranges, even heavily suppressed units "wake up" and return fire quite effectively. I suppose this is somewhat realistic, as when the enemy closes in, it's do or die.

This will not happen if you assault with the correct tactics, here is a quote from my Squad Attack Drill:

- The maneuver element should have a target order placed on the enemy team’s location as soon as it is possible (gray target line is okay)

- If the enemy team is not fully suppressed DO NOT advance within 30 meters as the maneuver element will be within grenade range and casualties will be taken

- 30 meters out (or closer), stop the maneuver element and plot a target order, this should have them start to throw grenades.

After the above is complete you should be able to immediately assault through the objective without suffering any close in return fire.

The following blog posts lay out the procedure in detail:

Squad Attack Drill

Fire & Movement

[Sailor Malan2]

Interesting, I must admit I thought I had observed that longer than one minute was necessary to get reliable suppression. Maybe your volume of incoming fire is high, and say 4 rifles would need longer. I guess it might not need longer to do the suppression, but have a smaller chance of suppressing so need longer to get more checks?

[Pelican Pal]

small arms fire in general is not overmodeled. However, automatic weapons, and especially SMGs, are more useful than they should be.

Because infantry moves in a tight column formation nearly constantly a quick burst from an MP40 can rack up half a squad in casualties with ease.

[Hister]

Yeah, I'm also getting the feeling SMG's are a tad bit owerpowered but since I never really was on the receiving end in real life I can't say if they are plausible or not. It's,especially dreary,when,you have to go against UK paras with German rifles, one SMG and one MG in a whole platoon like in my current Market Garden mission.

Was there ever any post from developers,about this matter?

[JoMac]

Myself and few others have mentioned this in previous posts in that Automatics ( and maybe small arms in general ) seem abit overmoddled, or the way the system models the use of them.

Troops in Column formation has something to do with the above. This may be part of the issue, and having other formations included in future may help.

Ok, CM models the Trajectory of each Bullet/Shell. What I want to know is if CM models how actual individual troop dispositions are within the AS ( and I don't just mean their posture )...ex, Does CM give Savings Rolls ( like I hear is done for HE ) to Small Arms to compinsate for things like; Troops sensing danger, getting shot and zig-zag alittle, going to ground and micro-managing cover, etc, etc.

I remember Jason C bringing-up an idea to exclude every other shot fired from Automatics to reflect some of this.

So, we now we already have Aim, Trajectory, Posture, & Suppression all determing Small Arms Hits...by adding a Savings Rolls (50/50 ?) for this micro-managing aspect, then it will atleast help better reflect RL Casualties.

[Jock Tamson]

Small arms in WW2 CM are one of the reasons I play CMSF almost exclusively at the moment.

[YankeeDog]

Does CM give Savings Rolls ( like I hear is done for HE ) to Small Arms to compinsate for things like; Troops sensing danger, getting shot and zig-zag alittle, going to ground and micro-managing cover, etc, etc.

AIUI, the "cover save" mechanic applies to all small projectiles (whether they be bullets or shell fragments), and is intended to represent the kind of factors you describe.

My SWAG on how it works is that the game first calculates whether a given projectile intersects the 3D model of the soldier, in which case it is registered as a "possible hit", and then there is a "saving throw," which if in the soldier's favor will turn what would otherwise be a hit into a miss.

Not sure of all of the factors that determine the "saving throw" chance, but ground cover definitely a big one -- a soldier in something like heavy woods gets a much better save than one on bare pavement.

[slysniper]

Hey, Great Test

I think it shows the strength of the system.

[Hister]

Decreasing SMG's accuracy seems the right way to go. 1/4 decrease of a current accuracy at 200 m maybe?

But hten again I'm not sure since I mostly encountered veteran/crack professional units wielding them. Hmmmm...