Question re: artillery & collateral damage...

[Brian Rock]

....to buildings, not to civilians - I presume you'll leave those out. I certainly hope so.

My question was prompted by this from the FAQ:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Can buildings and terrain be damaged?

Yes to both. Heavy fire from large caliber guns and bombs will cause damage to all sorts of terrain. Buildings can be partially or totally smashed, and fires can result from heavy attacks or explosions. Such damage may help or hinder your efforts to attack or defend. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So will arty actually knock houses down/around or just "degrade" them? What about rubble, in towns, where I understand it often blocked roads? Will there be shell craters? Effects on trees? Can arty cause fires? Wreck bridges?

Equally, if in-game arty can't do these, can some of them be "set-up" in the terrain editor - eg can there be blocked roads in a town?

For the record, I don't think any of these are essential to gameplay, not by any means. Just curious. Nice chrome if they're in, though.

Rocky

[Guest Big Time Software]

No to civilians. They have no place in a tactical wargame, other than to be killed. We'll leave the slaughter of the innocent to games like Carmageddon

Damage to buildings is graphically shown. It will range from a knocked down wall all the way to a pile of rubble. Damage changes the defensive and LOS qualities as well.

However, there will not be the total devistation of towns by artillery. This was done by massive bombardments, the firepower of which is not within CM's scope.

Yes, you can make buildings destroyed in the scenario editor. You can also start with stuff on fire. We do have a "rubble" marker that can be used to simulate rubble from previous combat/artillery/bombings.

Shells will create craters depending on shell size. The larger ones offer a degree of cover, similar to a foxhole.

We are not going alter other terrain features due to artillery. It is REALLY hard to do this because trees are abstracted. To get this information over to the player is also very tough for the same reason. Plus, it generally took a LOT of direct hits to damage a stand of trees to the point of not offering cover/protection. As stated above, this firepower is not available during the game.

Steve

[BDW]

Just curious - at this point in the development of CM, what is the largest, most destructive artillery that is going to be included? Also, what sort of limitations will be placed on the big stuff?

I remember hearing about massive off-board artillery strikes from battleships a while back...!

Also, in your answer, can you give an exciting, colorful description of what might happen in a CM scenario when we use this massive artillery effectively?

Thanks!

[Guest Big Time Software]

Biggest stuff we have in the game is 8in Howitzers for the Allies, 350mm Nebelwerfers for the Germans. Both will be RARE, if not nonexistent, in our scenarios. But we wanted to leave these as an option.

The SIZE of the gun/shell isn't what I was discussing above. Rather, it was the quantity of rounds. A huge bombardment before a "big push" could level and lay waste an entire CM map (and all units on it). So this is why we aren't including this type of artillery bombardments. What we include is SUPPORT artillery bombardments, which is very limited in terms of numbers of rounds.

What could one of these super bombardments do? I watched a 40 second bombardment from a battery of 350mm Nebelwerfers take out an entire US Rifle Company, more than a dozen support teams, and a number of tanks. The few units that survived were in no shape to do anything. A similar outcome resulted from an 8in bombardment of German positions.

This is basically what convinced us that heavy bombardments weren't going to be included in Combat Mission. Having read many accounts of what a saturated barrage could do at CM's scale, we feel that our results are highly accurate, and therefore not very fun. Only a twit would find pleasure in winning a battle on the first turn using a single FO We don't cater to twits...

Steve

[Boris Balaban]

To get on a smaller scale will there be engineers and will they have explosives to breach walls or destroy tanks?

[Guest Big Time Software]

Yes, we have engineers. They have satchel charges that can be used to blow stuff up. However, you will most likely see them when there is something specific to blow up, like a bridge or a pillbox, not when there is a pesky tank running about. Engineers were capable of killing tanks, they just weren't supposed to do that. Not their job

Steve

[Guest Big Time Software]

Small correction: because I'm a sick bastard, the largest artillery available to the Allies in Combat Mission are 14-inch battleship guns.

They're devastating.

Too much so, really. And that's why they're only in there as a lark, something to play around with but not something to make a serious, well-balanced scenario out of.

U.S. 240mm batteries are also available, so the 8-inch howitzers are actually the third-largest Allied artillery in the game.

For a realistic scenario, it's rare you'll even want to use anything as big as 155mm, much less the guns mentioned above. And 105mm is much more appropriate (and common).

Charles

[BDW]

That's more like it!

Curious - with those 14" battleship rounds, does the game track each round? And how accurate are they? Also, how many rounds would normally be fired into an area?

I'm glad you left in the big stuff. I think someone will be able to design some kind of exciting scenario or campaign around it.

Like in a campaign game, maybe the Germans have to endure a battleship strike one scenario, then get reinforcements the next scenario to balance out their losses and push the Allies back through all the rubble. Or something like that. Or maybe a scenario where the Allies have very few/weak units on the map but they get a little bit of battleship support...? I think something could work that doesn't turn the scenario into a lark! having said that, steve, I am expecting a reply from you explaining specifically why that would not work and giving me a learnin' in big artillery

[Guest Big Time Software]

Naval stuff will be all too accurate Individual rounds will be tracked just like any other form of artillery. Personally, I have *no* idea how many rounds would land from an average fire mission. I am going to guess less than a dozen, perhaps as few as half that. But just ONE of those rounds can really screw things up

You're right, someone out there might be able to come up with a good way of employing the big stuff. That's why we are including them But I have no idea how this would work...

The problem is that such a heavy bombardment is, at CM's scale, decisive. In other words, it is NOT a tactical weapon, rather a strategic one. Think of one salvo of the big stuff being the same as several batteries of normal (105-155) stuff firing all at the same spot at the same time. Devistating firepower like this was RARELY available for tactical support.

If one side gets hit by these things, it had better have LOTS of replacements. And if that is the designer's plan (i.e. giving the victim lots of extra units) then the guy with the big stuff had better score a good hit or so long once the reinforcements come in! Not sure if this would be fun or not.

Like I said, I saw what the 8in howitzer could do, and that was PLENTY. Our test game is company sized, and one barrage wiped out almost my entire force. We haven't put in the bigger stuff, so I can only shudder to think what that could do...

Steve

[Moon]

I guess the safest way to simulate the very common pre-battle arty barrage would be to let the scenario start AFTER the hour of pounding the §/&$! out of your enemy...

However, one question: although I agree absolutely that a point blank hit from an arty round will do a LOT of damage, my understanding is that even after the heaviest barrage often enough the guys on the wrong end of it survived, be it because of defensive preparations or just the usual inaccuracy of such attacks. The question: will we be able to get this kind of anti-arty preparation? Like roofed foxholes and trenches etc.?

[BDW]

Steve, looking at the screenshots, it looks like the maps are pretty good sized. I am having trouble seeing how a single round from a battleship can be so devastating, unless it lands really close to the enemy unit. But then again, I don't know how big the blasts were from those guns. Despite my lack of knowledge on the subject, it seems to me that even a half a dozen shells from a battleship can be avoided if your units are spread out properly on the map. Or am I wrong? Just how big are the maps during a normal CM scenario? Also, I assume there is a delay from the time you call in the fire order and the time the rounds land, which would add an element of chance as to where the enemy will actually be located.

Another question I have on off-board artillery generally is: can the scenario designer choose how much and when? Or are there going to be historical accuracy limitations placed on this. For example, can the desinger give the allies a single battleship round every other turn or would that not be allowed becuase it was not historically accurate? I mean, would there be a minimum salvo or something?

thanks for the info!

[Guest Big Time Software]

First a response to Moon's post...

Yup, guys did survive even the most lethal pounding. But this was on a higher scale sometimes. In other words, let us say a divisional front was attacked. In some cases an entire company would basically be eliminated, but that still leaves 11 other infantry companies. However, at CM's scale you might only have ONE company. See what I mean? And even in my example some men did survive, it's just that the units were basically useless (i.e. 1-3 men each). Combat effectiveness is, in such chases, reduced to nil.

We have foxholes, bunkers, buildings, and of course natural protection. This will increase the chance of survival for sure. But the most common reason for men surviving a massive barrage was being missed by over/under shots

Response to BDW's post...

The problem is that you can't space your men out far enough to avoid being wiped out by the big stuff. Reason is that if you want to defend against a determined attacker you have to concentrate your forces to a certain degree. Space them out too much and the attacker can either slip through or role over your defenses. But if you are too densely positioned, and are unlucky enough to get hit with artillery (especially stuff larger than 155s), then you are screwed too. And of course the attacker has to be concentrated to deliver a meaningful blow. So if that force comes under artillery, mucho problemos

A rifle platoon, for example, should have around 100m to 200m of frontage on the defensive. This isn't a whole lot. If a single round of the HUGE stuff came in, and only a single round, it could wipe out most of that one platoon. But of course ONE round is not what we are talking about. Say 6 rounds come in fairly close together, then we are talking total devastation of a decent sized chunk of land. Remember, the shockwave from such a blast is just as lethal as the metal it flings. In fact it probably killed more men. Charles has all the physics in there, so he can better tell you the specifics. But I have read MANY accounts of men coming upon dead (both sides) that look like they were just asleep. No wounds, no blood, just dead.

Yes, there are command and control delays. If you are bombarding a defender this is almost irrelevant since they are largely sitting still. But against an attacker, yup, you better have some good planning and a little luck on your side in order to hit. Our concern is that if you DO have a little luck and skill that you can end a game in one turn. This might be realistic, but it certainly isn't fun if you were the other guy. Imagine spending several hours planning, deploying, and plotting your attacks. You're just getting into the thick of it and you loose a huge chunk of your attacking force to artillery. Since you were supposed to take x and y objectives, and no longer can, you have lost. Again, realistic in RARE circumstances perhaps, but not necessarily fun or common in real war.

Map sizes will (or SHOULD) be in proportion to the size of the forces. Scenario designers shouldn't make a HUGE map for a battle of 2 platoons, and also shouldn't have a tiny one for a battalion! I forget what the largest size is, but our current one is something like 1000x600m for a reinforced company sized battle. PLENTY big, let me tell you...

We aren't planning on placing restrictions on the designer. If he/she wants to put in 8 naval FOs, well, I *think* we'll let it happen. Not recommended... I'm not sure if we are going to allow variable fire mission per FO, but each fire mission will be historically correct. This means a certain number of rounds fired at once a certain number of times. You will NOT be able to have a battleship, for example, fire one round each turn. That would be unrealistic.

Everybody should note that the HUGE stuff was RARELY used in general. And when it WAS used it was as a strategic weapon (as mentioned earlier it is not a tactical weapon) which is outside of CM's scope. However, there are a couple of rare cases where such weapons were called upon to support a tactical objective. Probably can be counted on two hands for the whole NW ETO timeframe. We will be VERY disappointed if designers think that they should use this stuff willy nilly. Combat Mission isn't about giving each side the biggest guns and letting them duke it out. A scenario or two of this is fine, but more than that will be as boring as it is historically incorrect.

Steve

[BDW]

Steve thanks for the good reply! I think it is great you take the time to school us on this stuff. Funny thing is, we've never even played the game yet. Can you imagine what is going to happen to this board when a demo comes out?

Oh man, I feel sorry for YOU!

[BDW]

Oops forgot to tell you my idea:

Steve, I've been trying to come up with a way to use the "big stuff" in light of what I learned from your last post. The only thing I could think of that sounds fun/interesting is to have the big artillery used by one side at the very beginning of a scenario before the other side has brought all of his units onto the map.

In other words, the scenario could start out with the Americans getting a salvo of battleship artillery on the first turn to wipe out a few Germans who are left in a town before the Americans advance. But on turn two or three, the German reinforcements arrive, and the scenario is off and running.

I think it would be interesting for the Allied player, especially in a campaign game, to choose which buildings he wants to destroy with the battleship and which roads or bridges he wants to blow up to hinder the advancement of the German reinforcements. Kind of like using the big guns as a terrain altering tool.

It could pose some interesting questions for the Allied player: like, say he is in a defensive position, knows the Germans are going to be pouring onto the map on turn three, and has to carefully choose his placement for the artillery. There is a bridge, a couple of roads, and a small town on the map, any one of which the German player might be able to use to advance the reinforcements, each with it's own advantage and disadvantages for each side. By choosing what to blow up, the Allied player could change how the German player deploys his forces, and what happens in future scenarios in the campaign. This idea would be cool and add a dynamic to a campaign game where the American player might wind up wishing he had not blown up all those houses in the earlier scenario, becuase now he needs them for cover! Or wishing he had not blown up that bridge, becuase now he is wanting to retreat but is backed up against the river.

This idea assumes that:

- I have a clue what I am talking about from a historical point of view. For all I know, the situations I described above would never happen and make no sense at all

- reinforcements can "enter" a scenario at a particular time from a particular direction(like in squad leader)

- campaign games take place on the same map and use the same terrain from scenario to scenario.

If all this is true, then I think the use of big guns could be fun, dynamic, and exciting, and lead to some irony in the campaign game, without necessarily spelling complete doom for one side or the other.

OK Steve, tell me why not...

[Guest Big Time Software]

Well, basically I think you have hit upon the KIND of thing that would make the big stuff enjoyable for either side to play with. A campaign seems to me to be a much better place for it than in an individual scenario. I see no reason why you couldn't make this happen.

Is it realistic? Perhaps. Would it be a challenge for both sides? I think so. Even thought the US side wouldn't know what was going to happen unless they played the game before, the tactical decisions you described are still valid since campaigns do take place on the same map (uh, depending...)

In short, I can see some scenarios built like this being fun. But is the kind of thing that can only be done right a couple of times. It would be like always giving the Germans a slew of King Tigers and the US a couple of Halftracks. Sure, fun for a bit, but then who cares

Steve

[Moon]

LOL - 350mm terrain altering tool. I like that one.