Infantry canonfodder in CMRT

[Erwin]

I thought that mods change only the graphical look, and NOT any actual effect of fire or stance.  Otherwise two players one with the mod, one without, would have an unfair H2H game.

[RockinHarry]

I thought that mods change only the graphical look, and NOT any actual effect of fire or stance.  Otherwise two players one with the mod, one without, would have an unfair H2H game.

Erwin, I recommend you to test play the medic mod first. That should answer any questions whether the mod is graphical only! 

The (full) mod basically was developed for play vs. the AIP. I can not test H2H situations myself, as I only have one CMX2 install on just one computer, so the mod is always active and affects all nations. There could be surely some "problems" if in H2H/PBEM play one player has the mod installed and the other not. If I´ll upload the full mod I can only recommend that some H2H players start some game with it, either both with the mod installed or just one of them. Hard to tell what happens in the latter case, but one possibility could also be that the modded stances will be preserved in the save game files and no matter if the other player does have the mod or not, both will see it graphically and with their "effects" (lower profile). I really can´t tell. If some CMBN ! players want to give it a try, then here´s a link (11MB file to be unpacked into the games data/z folder).

https://www.dropbox.com/s/mxphgi6zophf4gc/RHZ Re Animate.rar?dl=0

The sub folders contain some descriptive text files as well, so you can decide if you want to use a particular "feature", or not. Also helps for general understanding and making some own experiments.

As said, this is an "experimental" mod and for CMBN only!! Other games (CMFI/CMRT/CMBS) are not tested and a majority of animation changes won´t apply.

[Bulletpoint]

Are you kidding me? Maps already take a significant effort to craft. Quadrupling the effort required would not benefit anyone. And besides, even if they did you'd just complain that the tiles were 2-metres, or 1-metre, or ...

I know maps take a long time to craft, but I don't think they would take much longer if the detail were to be increased. We already don't need to set the height value of each individual square. But it would be interesting to have the option. Also, I was not complaining about anything.

[Luka]

@RockinHarry wow, that sounds awesome. Good on you man, I'm sure a lot of people will appreciate your effort in making this

[Bozowans]

ASL Veteran - would it slow down the game?  It might.  But less rally power might also reduce "board stalls" that occur when each side has enough firepower to suppress the enemy, but the men shot at rally from those effects and the battle continues as a result.  With lots of further fire exchanged because of it.  My diagnosis of the cause of high losses is that the men "last too long" under fire, in a morale sense rather than an actual men hit sense.  Brittler troops don't obviously equate to less decision.  They might lead to more decision, to a side giving way at a lower level of losses received to date.

I will agree that some of the other measures I've discussed, more modeling of confusion and command delay, would indeed tend to slow down the game.  Realistically so in my opinion, but I can see that being independently undesirable for a broad group of players.  That is also the only set of the recommendations that can't be implemented without code changes. (Turning down rally power could be done more thoroughly with code changes, but a start can be made in that direction just by making a heavier use of green troops).

As for the loss threshold cease fire option, on its own it would tend to end fights earlier than they end now ,which would tend to reduce the number of game turns played per scenario (and losses with it).  It might slow fights down by more tentative play by the commanders, within the turns played, but overall would probably make games go faster, even if less death happened per game turn actually played.

Fair question...

 

I just wish they would make troops rout off the map, instead of being pinned against map edges. Whatever happened to that feature in CMSF, where panicking troops would disappear off the map with an exclamation point appearing over their heads? That way you would have guys deserting their ranks one by one as well as surrendering. In the later games, they can only surrender or fall back a short distance. Then their morale recovers and/or they get killed later. I agree that morale recovers too quickly.

And I really, really wish they would fix the crazy, suicidal tank crews already. Tank crews are sometimes even more dangerous than regular infantry. They like to jump out of their tanks pistols blazing until they are cut down. The crew might run away a short distance, and then their morale recovers and they ambush a bunch of guys at close range later on with a volley of rapid pistol fire. I might think I'm doing quite well in a scenario, moving through fields of wrecked enemy vehicles, thinking I destroyed the enemy force, only to have an entire squad decimated and broken by a sudden, violent tank crew ambush from the wheat field nearby.

There is also no reason not to throw your own bailed-out crews right into the front line if you want to.

If I have guys swarming around a tank, close assaulting it, then the crew will jump out with that really fast bailing out animation and then cap some of my guys in the back of the head at point blank range before they can react. Then the crew gets gunned down. The game doesn't allow them to just surrender right away.

I just played a scenario in Black Sea where one Ukrainian tank crewman killed I think seven of my guys by himself. It was like he was Rambo or something. He had no other friendlies nearby for hundreds of meters. It was just him alone in the woods at night, the sole survivor of his crew, repeatedly ambushing my guys over and over while he moved through the woods like a ghost. I would try area firing into the woods, but then he would run away and relocate. It took an entire platoon hunting him in order to bring him down (after he killed half of it). It's hilarious, and I suppose that's great for Hollywood, but it's hard to claim the game is a "serious combat simulator" with things like this.

Dismounted tank crews controlled by the AI will also continue the same attack orders they had when they were still in the tank. So this leads to bailed-out tank crews charging mindlessly toward your positions, trying to capture them with their pistols. Most of the time this isn't really noticeable because the crews usually get killed so quickly, but it was very noticeable in the "Red Hordes" scenario in CMRT. That scenario is designed as Germans vs AI, with the AI Russians attacking you with dozens of tanks with almost no infantry support. After knocking out a couple dozen of them at long range, you start seeing waves of tank crewmen streaming across the fields, attempting to storm your trenches all by themselves, shrugging off the heavy losses and machine gun fire.

I remember this happening all the way back in CMBN, and yet this was still happening using the latest version of CMRT a couple of weeks ago.

[Bulletpoint]

I just played a scenario in Black Sea where one Ukrainian tank crewman killed I think seven of my guys by himself. It was like he was Rambo or something. He had no other friendlies nearby for hundreds of meters. It was just him alone in the woods at night, the sole survivor of his crew, repeatedly ambushing my guys over and over while he moved through the woods like a ghost. I would try area firing into the woods, but then he would run away and relocate. It took an entire platoon hunting him in order to bring him down (after he killed half of it). It's hilarious, and I suppose that's great for Hollywood, but it's hard to claim the game is a "serious combat simulator" with things like this.

Couldn't help but laugh at this  But you're right. Enemy troops are often at least as dangerous while "broken" as when they were fresh. In CMBN, it seems it's _always_ the guy with the MG42 who runs off and hides. Maybe it would be better if "panicking" actually meant dropping your weapon and running off, only keeping stuff like pistols in holsters.

[RockinHarry]

 

I just wish they would make troops rout off the map, instead of being pinned against map edges. Whatever happened to that feature in CMSF, where panicking troops would disappear off the map with an exclamation point appearing over their heads? That way you would have guys deserting their ranks one by one as well as surrendering. In the later games, they can only surrender or fall back a short distance. Then their morale recovers and/or they get killed later. I agree that morale recovers too quickly.

And I really, really wish they would fix the crazy, suicidal tank crews already. Tank crews are sometimes even more dangerous than regular infantry. They like to jump out of their tanks pistols blazing until they are cut down. The crew might run away a short distance, and then their morale recovers and they ambush a bunch of guys at close range later on with a volley of rapid pistol fire. I might think I'm doing quite well in a scenario, moving through fields of wrecked enemy vehicles, thinking I destroyed the enemy force, only to have an entire squad decimated and broken by a sudden, violent tank crew ambush from the wheat field nearby.

There is also no reason not to throw your own bailed-out crews right into the front line if you want to.

If I have guys swarming around a tank, close assaulting it, then the crew will jump out with that really fast bailing out animation and then cap some of my guys in the back of the head at point blank range before they can react. Then the crew gets gunned down. The game doesn't allow them to just surrender right away.

I just played a scenario in Black Sea where one Ukrainian tank crewman killed I think seven of my guys by himself. It was like he was Rambo or something. He had no other friendlies nearby for hundreds of meters. It was just him alone in the woods at night, the sole survivor of his crew, repeatedly ambushing my guys over and over while he moved through the woods like a ghost. I would try area firing into the woods, but then he would run away and relocate. It took an entire platoon hunting him in order to bring him down (after he killed half of it). It's hilarious, and I suppose that's great for Hollywood, but it's hard to claim the game is a "serious combat simulator" with things like this.

Dismounted tank crews controlled by the AI will also continue the same attack orders they had when they were still in the tank. So this leads to bailed-out tank crews charging mindlessly toward your positions, trying to capture them with their pistols. Most of the time this isn't really noticeable because the crews usually get killed so quickly, but it was very noticeable in the "Red Hordes" scenario in CMRT. That scenario is designed as Germans vs AI, with the AI Russians attacking you with dozens of tanks with almost no infantry support. After knocking out a couple dozen of them at long range, you start seeing waves of tank crewmen streaming across the fields, attempting to storm your trenches all by themselves, shrugging off the heavy losses and machine gun fire.

I remember this happening all the way back in CMBN, and yet this was still happening using the latest version of CMRT a couple of weeks ago.

Not entirely sure about that, but I seem to notice rambo crews (those that keep attacking on foot) more likely to happen, when they´re part of an AI group (in an AI plan), that both contains infantry and tanks. In a self made CMBN mission WIP I had attached single tanks to an infantry Coy HQ, to see if due to info sharing, tanks and infantry can get to coordinate better, with reagard to spotting and engaging enemies. While both, the attached tanks and infantry I made not belonging to the same AI group, some the bailed crews started to get back moving towards their last orders map zone. It somehow looked like the infantry Coy commander decided to employ the crews just as normal infantry in order to achieve its mission set objectives (orders movement map zones) with increased forces. I need to try with seperate commands (tank Bn COC and infantry Bn COC) and seperate AI groups to see if it really makes a difference with overly eager vehicle crews.

[RockinHarry]

Couldn't help but laugh at this  But you're right. Enemy troops are often at least as dangerous while "broken" as when they were fresh. In CMBN, it seems it's _always_ the guy with the MG42 who runs off and hides. Maybe it would be better if "panicking" actually meant dropping your weapon and running off, only keeping stuff like pistols in holsters.

That would make sense. I find it weird enough that panicking/routing HMG crews have time and nerves enough to grab the HMG in semi deployed state and just then move off. In order for the HMG rather gets "abandoned", BFC first needs to get crew served ordnance that is not a vehicle applicable for "bailing", just like it is for AT guns and such. Yet bailing is assumed to also make the weapon inoperable permanently, which is rather a time consuming procedure I wouldn´t suspect to be made from crews that panic and rout. So bailing out and abandoning a weapon should be two seperate processes IMO, with the latter to be applicable for reemployment, at least with the original crew, when it gets back to a better morale state. In case of small arms (lMG, Zooks ect.) and their ammo, I´d also like to see these permanently abandoned, maybe on a somewhat random base, as panicking/routing inherits more of a "save your life" and not "save your weapons" attitude more realistically. Beeing this more a sort of hard core realism, I would not expect to see that implemented, as likely a majority of players would complain to see precious ordnance vanish from their forces due to this cause.

[Bulletpoint]

. Beeing this more a sort of hard core realism, I would not expect to see that implemented, as likely a majority of players would complain to see precious ordnance vanish from their forces due to this cause.

I think most players of CM actually like realism... in fact, I don't think I ever saw anyone complain that the game was too realistic. Plenty of complaints the other way though.

But it could be added to some of the higher difficulty modes, so people had a choice. Choice is good.

Edited October 27, 2015 by Bulletpoint

[Bulletpoint]

Probably some people underestimate what "panic" means in a war situation. I don't think it really means "I get a bit scared and run back 30 metres, then wait and look for more enemies to kill".

[PanzerMike]

Choice is good.

Agreed!

Edited October 27, 2015 by PanzerMike

[RockinHarry]

I think most players of CM actually like realism... in fact, I don't think I ever saw anyone complain that the game was too realistic. Plenty of complaints the other way though.

But it could be added to some of the higher difficulty modes, so people had a choice. Choice is good.

Yup, elite and iron would be candidates, but I wouldn´t mind if there would be added seperate feature toggles in the games option menu. Let´s see first, what the Bulge and game engine V4 will bring to us. 

[sand digger]

In the real world infantry survived quite well in open country, if, if, they dug in to some degree. It does not take much to offer protection but it does take prompt and energetic digging to gain that protection. BF has always been infantry ignorant, perhaps it is time to address that issue and put aside for the moment questions of uniform correctness, signage, colour and other trivial matters which contribute nothing to gameplay.

[LukeFF]

BF has always been infantry ignorant, perhaps it is time to address that issue and put aside for the moment questions of uniform correctness, signage, colour and other trivial matters which contribute nothing to gameplay.

Oh, please... 

[Sgt Joch]

 

Dismounted tank crews controlled by the AI will also continue the same attack orders they had when they were still in the tank. So this leads to bailed-out tank crews charging mindlessly toward your positions, trying to capture them with their pistols. Most of the time this isn't really noticeable because the crews usually get killed so quickly, but it was very noticeable in the "Red Hordes" scenario in CMRT. That scenario is designed as Germans vs AI, with the AI Russians attacking you with dozens of tanks with almost no infantry support. After knocking out a couple dozen of them at long range, you start seeing waves of tank crewmen streaming across the fields, attempting to storm your trenches all by themselves, shrugging off the heavy losses and machine gun fire.

 

that is a problem since the tank crew will keep following its AI group order, there have been discussions on how to fix it, for example "triggering" a new order to make the crew move to its friendly side. It will eventually get fixed.

On suppression and panic, it is quite easy to manipulate the code. The harder question is coming up with the right settings. As a player though, this is the easiest factor to control since you can choose whether to play with poor morale conscripts or fanatic elite troops or any other combinations.

[JasonC]

To sgt Joch re "control" - well I can influence it as a player, by playing greens.  I can't actually control it, though.  See, I think the level of initial brittleness under fire of regulars or greens is about right, but they all still recover from dinged morale way too fast.  And I cannot control that.  If I had all the parameters in my hands like knobs, I'd need to experiment, of course.  But the first thing I'd try is slowing rally by a factor of three.  

Not a small tweak, you see.

[Sgt Joch]

well Jason, that is your personal opinion. When the new MG/suppression code was being tested, I spent a lot of time playing the first mission of "Road to Montebourg" where you have to attack with "Green" troops over open ground. If you just try to rush forward without suppressing the defences, you quickly wind up with casualties, broken and pinned squads and a stalled attack. Yes, they will recover, but if they are "rattled" as often happens, they are even more brittle when you try to use them again. yes, I do think the rally code could be tweaked, but not by a factor of three.

[JasonC]

Sgt Joch - I was heavily involved in those discussions, as you may recall.  And the reason I say things like the initial brittleness or regulars or greens is about right is, precisely, that company scale approaches into fire get some distance and then stall out due to morale failure, before their firepower can suppress the defense but also without getting themselves killed.  But the reason I also say that recovery is too fast is that eventual full battle casualties come in at 5 to 10 times historical levels, for comparable scale actions.  The reason being the men keep going far more than their historical counterparts do, after first shaken by fire experiences.  Ammo consumption comes in far too high and running out is far too tactically important for the same reason - because it takes extreme bullet throw weights to sustain even marginal suppression against overly strong rally power.