Will infantry be fixed in CMx2

[Battlefront.com]

Yeah, that was a good video.  Even for a grizzled designer/researcher like me, I learned a few things I didn't know before.  In particular I had heard the charge that Patton nixed the 76s coming over and never found that to make sense.  As the guy stated earlier on in the video, Patton wasn't nearly the big deal during the war that he was after it.  To think a field commander could have that much influence is a bit of a stretch.  Patton might have been able to avoid them coming into service within his Army once the tanks were in theater, but to prevent them from being shipped from the US in the first place?  Nah, never saw the logic in that.

Steve

[shift8]

16 hours ago, Rustman1980 said:

That is a very informative video.  Than you for posting it.

no prob, that dude makes some great stuff. 

[shift8]

@Everyone who is still talking about spacing with infantry. 

 

Spacing and formations are of most relevance in situations where firepower alone is your only real protection. Things like the wedge and the line (and their associated spacing) are meant properly distribute firepower and reduce casualties by spacing people as far apart as the terrain will allow without breaking both line of sight and communications. They are not magical ninja cookie cutter laws of nature that must be observed. In fact, they are almost never observed in any situation where cover can be found, except in the most abstract sense. In other words, the place they are of real import is really only when you are in the middle of a open field and have nowhere to hide. If you can cover, it almost never makes sense of have some of your men NOT in cover simply so they can maintain some arbitrary formation or spacing. IRL, people bunch up however they need to to get under cover. This is both natural and tactically correct in 99.999% of all situations. 

This is one of the main reasons I dont really care about the visual spacing of the troops in CM. Most of the time formations are not observed anyhow, as terrain dictates how a unit moves. And the effective vulnerability of the units is essentially the same. Like Vanir said, if you up the spaceing youd have to unnerf the HE. Tends to imply its already balanced out. 

[Battlefront.com]

2 hours ago, shift8 said:

Tends to imply its already balanced out. 

Yes it does   When it comes to casualty counting, perception is more powerful than fact for most players.  They see guys bunched up "too much" and then look at casualty figures.  They conclude that it's the perceived bunching that is what leads to casualties, but it isn't.  In rough order of importance, here are the reasons for higher than normal casualties:

1.  Ultimately this is a game and the player's desire is to win the game.  Unlike real war there's no real cost to the player if he loses too many forces.  Even the Campaign system, which does punish players for repeated losses, doesn't have the same effect.  It can't court marshal a player for gross incompetence or insubordination, it can't put them in charge of the field kitchens after a big loss, it can't toss a grenade into your lap and claim that the enemy killed you.  Even good players make a lot of mistakes, none of which have consequences other than mentally tallying how many forces they lost.  At the very least the AI Player is reckless and not very bright, so a near perfect Human Player is going to sense the casualty count is high because of all the virtual bodies and burned out tanks in front of his positions.

2.  Not only are both Human and AI players prone to recklessness to win the game, both players routinely order units to do actions which are extremely dangerous to the point of reckless and/or outright moronic that in real life would not be carried out by subordinates.  Or at least not carried out "to the letter".  Units would either outright mutiny or would find some way to disguise/excuse the fact that they weren't carrying out the orders.  Only the Soviets have the NKVD to ensure compliance, and even then that was in extreme situations.

3.  These are pixeltruppen, not real Humans.  Even though we bend over backwards to code the TacAI to behave reasonably realistically, they still do things pretty much as ordered even when in real life they wouldn't due to the Human instinct for self preservation.  This not only ties into Point 2 but also leads to small tactical situations that the TacAI simply isn't being conservative enough.  If we crank the reluctance factor up too much players howl that the game is "broken" because they blame the system for the Pixeltruppen not doing what they are told rather than blaming themselves for crappy orders.  We saw this demonstrated way back in CMBO days with the US Army Captain's course at Fort Benning where ROTC players said the game was broken because units didn't always do what they instructed them to.  The commissioned officers, on the other hand, gave the game high marks for this same behavior.  Guess which one better describes our average player?

4.  Time compression kills units.  Not only do you have the artificial game environment pushing players to get a result AND to get it in one battle, you also have the artificial aspects of the game that give players WAY TOO MUCH information.  As much as we try to restrict the information and still have a game, there's still WAY TOO MUCH information available too easily and too perfectly.  Too much information means less room for uncertainty, less uncertainty means less hesitation, less hesitation means greater exposure to risk within a shorter period of time.  This is the Player As God problem and it haunts all wargames.  CM is no exception.

5.  Too much ability to coordinate fire on a particular enemy unit.  When the player sees something that needs extra attention he can far more easily move things around or re-prioritize firepower to deal with it far quicker and far more reliably than any battlefield situation in the history of warfare.  This means a unit that poses a particularly big threat can suddenly find itself facing the full combined arms might of the player's entire force instead of more realistically only a little portion of it.  Units with no Command links can be repositioned PERFECTLY to aide units that in real life it wouldn't even know were in trouble.  Etc.  This leads to higher enemy casualties than would be likely in real life.

6.  The ability to have ultimate control over priority of fires at the highest level aids in making the use of firepower far more efficient and managed than in real life.  Small threat over here?  Give it 10 rounds of mortar fire because you know there's 1 hour left in the battle and you don't want to use it all.  In real life?  Maybe 20 rounds would be used on a bailed out tank crew because someone observing them got a little panicky.  Not going to happen in CM to the same extent as in real life, therefore the amount of firepower available to the player in the game is far more likely to cause a casualty than in real life simply because it's going to be utilized more efficiently.

Oh, there's probably another dozen reasons if I put more thought into it, but I think this is enough to show that players often don't think very deeply about the simulations they play.  Instead it is "unit is too bunched up = too many casualties".  As demonstrated in the last few pages, not even the basic premise of "bunching up" is correct.

Steve

[weapon2010]

 Nice job Steve on summing up the reasons for to many casualties, but back to that video, if we take that guy's advice , then we shouldn't believe everything he says either. I have a tough time believing that the Americans only encountered Tigers 3 times.

[Battlefront.com]

I had to re-listen to what he said because I figured I missed some critical bit of language, and I did.  What he was talking about is documented, verifiable tank on tank engagements.  For sure lots were not documented, but remember the Tiger 1 was a pretty rare vehicle by this point in the war, especially after Normandy.  IIRC the bulk of the Tigers in Normandy were aimed at the Commonwealth forces, not the Americans.

Part of the reason for documentation problems is that often times the tankers didn't know what they were shooting at in detail.  I read a memoir of the gunner for one of the only Pershings to go into combat and he was the guy that knocked out the one and only King Tiger credited to a Pershing.  He said he didn't know that's what he hit until a few days later when someone pieced it together.  All he knew was he saw something big and armored under tree cover, he fired, they scooted without making a solid ID.

Steve

[Anthony P.]

@shift8 Speaking of him, found this a while ago as well:

A few hours worth of myth busting, and other armour questions.

 

[shift8]

1 hour ago, weapon2010 said:

 Nice job Steve on summing up the reasons for to many casualties, but back to that video, if we take that guy's advice , then we shouldn't believe everything he says either. I have a tough time believing that the Americans only encountered Tigers 3 times.

You shouldn't. There were exactly ZERO Tiger tanks on the American front in Normandy. They were not encountered AT ALL until after Normandy and at that point German armor was in a state of disrepair due to casualties. There were only 1500 Tiger tanks produced in ww2, spread across the years it was used and across a continent. They were rare, no matter who you were. Also he is talking of Confirmed combat record of Tiger encounters. Doesnt mean something didnt slip though the cracks. Its a moot point though. Generally speaking, German armor should be though of as a force comprised of 1/3 Panther, 1/3 Pz4, and 1/3 Assault gun. Some tiny minutiae after that is Heavies. 

And appears that this post is redundant. Thats what I get for only reading part of the page lol. 

Edited July 2, 2016 by shift8

[Battlefront.com]

In CMBO we put in a slightly "gamey" feature where US forces would more likely think a PzIV was a Tiger.  As was said in the myth busting talk, at a distance (less skirt armor) the two look more similar than dissimilar.

BTW, I would have loved for this video to have been available in 2000 when we released CMBO.  We had to combat almost all of these myths and it was a tough slog.  The biggest one we had to deal with was the moronic 5:1 claim.  "Hey, I engaged a Tiger with 5 Shermans and I lost!  I should have won!" (from American side players) and "Hey, I was engaged by 2 Shermans and I lost my Tiger!  I should have won because it takes 5 to knock out a Tiger!" (from the German side players).  People seriously argued points like this, I kid you not.

One of the biggest things we had to do back then was convince people that the Shermans and Tigers in CM were modeled correctly.  The popular history books and poorly formed internet chatter, on the other hand, was not modeled correctly

Steve

[LukeFF]

On 7/1/2016 at 7:10 AM, Duckman said:

True, but looking at films and photographs (which have their own problems as source material, of course) the only times I've seen spacing according to regulation is when troops are near the start line or on some kind of approach march. Of couse that may be due to various reasons, but you do get the impression they tended to bunch up more.

E.g. these: 

look quite typical of the photos I've seen of troops in position.

I've always liked this one when referring to how troops can sometimes bunch up: 

[MikeyD]

"I have a tough time believing that the Americans only encountered Tigers 3 times."

I recall reading one anecdote from the Bulge battles where a Greyhound on a night patrol was passed by a 'Tiger' barreling down the road. The Greyhound chased after it and put a 37mm shot through the rear plate at point blank range. The story was probably gleaned from some unit history. The question is - was it a Tiger I or Tiger II, or was the term 'Tiger' just used generically for "big MF German tank of some sort"? Ardennes in December? Yeh, it could'a really been a Tiger II. Its not outside the realm of possibility.

[weapon2010]

2 hours ago, shift8 said:

You shouldn't. There were exactly ZERO Tiger tanks on the American front in Normandy. They were not encountered AT ALL until after Normandy and at that point German armor was in a state of disrepair due to casualties. There were only 1500 Tiger tanks produced in ww2, spread across the years it was used and across a continent. They were rare, no matter who you were. Also he is talking of Confirmed combat record of Tiger encounters. Doesnt mean something didnt slip though the cracks. Its a moot point though. Generally speaking, German armor should be though of as a force comprised of 1/3 Panther, 1/3 Pz4, and 1/3 Assault gun. Some tiny minutiae after that is Heavies. 

And appears that this post is redundant. Thats what I get for only reading part of the page lol. 

I don't mean to go "grog" on you shift8, but only 1354 Tigers produced according to Encyclopedia of German Tanks.

[weapon2010]

 So what your telling me is that Saving Private Ryan is inaccurate?  Now surely Steven Speilberg put exhaustive research into the accuracy of  his movie , and Tigers appear on June12th?

[Michael Emrys]

3 hours ago, LukeFF said:

I've always liked this one when referring to how troops can sometimes bunch up: 

This has always been one of my favorites:

Michael

[JonS]

8 hours ago, weapon2010 said:

I have a tough time believing that the Americans only encountered Tigers 3 times.

At the risk of piling on ...

It really isn't that hard to confirm this for yourself. There were exactly three (3) battalions of Tigers employed in France in the June-Nov period; 101st and 102nd sSSPzAbts, and 503 sPzAbt (a Heer unit). Track those three units in time and space, and you are tracking all the tigers in France.

(Hint: all three were sent against the British around Caen, and destroyed there fighting the British. The US occasionally encountered waifs and strays, Tigers sent to the rear for refitting, or trying to make their way back to Germany independently, but never as a formed unit arrayed for battle.)

[Erwin]

Good points by Steve re "bunching" and casualties. 

So, when we see inf bunching up, does the game "see" them as a bunched group of inf., or are casualties calculated as if the inf are spread out?

Same question when we see an inf unit trying to fit into foxholes, and it looks like some are in and some are out.  Are they calculated as if they are all in a foxhole?

[Warts 'n' all]

14 hours ago, JonS said:

At the risk of piling on ...

It really isn't that hard to confirm this for yourself. There were exactly three (3) battalions of Tigers employed in France in the June-Nov period; 101st and 102nd sSSPzAbts, and 503 sPzAbt (a Heer unit). Track those three units in time and space, and you are tracking all the tigers in France.

(Hint: all three were sent against the British around Caen, and destroyed there fighting the British. The US occasionally encountered waifs and strays, Tigers sent to the rear for refitting, or trying to make their way back to Germany independently, but never as a formed unit arrayed for battle.)

Not quite correct. Panzer Lehr Division also, (unlike the other Heer Panzer units) had it's own Tigers albeit only a handful. But they had all been KO'd by the Limey Second Army before the division was shifted westwards at the beginning of July.

[Battlefront.com]

6 hours ago, Erwin said:

Good points by Steve re "bunching" and casualties. 

So, when we see inf bunching up, does the game "see" them as a bunched group of inf., or are casualties calculated as if the inf are spread out?

For everything but HE effects 1:1 is literally simulated.  HE effects use a fairly intelligent way of spreading the firepower around.

Quote

Same question when we see an inf unit trying to fit into foxholes, and it looks like some are in and some are out.  Are they calculated as if they are all in a foxhole?

1:1 as it is with everything else.  In situations where some soldiers won't go into foxholes it is usually because the TacAI views the soldier as being safer outside with whatever cover is available vs. crammed in with other guys.  This for sure doesn't work 100% correctly 100% of the time, but that gets us back to the reality that the TacAI isn't perfect nor should it be since in real life soldiers screw up on a regular basis.

Steve

[Dennis50]

2 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

since in real life soldiers screw up on a regular basis

As do we commanders, such as me. ;(

[RockinHarry]

23 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

For everything but HE effects 1:1 is literally simulated.  HE effects use a fairly intelligent way of spreading the firepower around.

1:1 as it is with everything else.  In situations where some soldiers won't go into foxholes it is usually because the TacAI views the soldier as being safer outside with whatever cover is available vs. crammed in with other guys.  This for sure doesn't work 100% correctly 100% of the time, but that gets us back to the reality that the TacAI isn't perfect nor should it be since in real life soldiers screw up on a regular basis.

Steve

Oftentimes even small craters take precedence over foxholes when in the same AS. Or when cover is afforded by steeply sloped parts of surrounding terrain mesh. That oftentimes makes it difficult to predict whether ptroopers will use foxholes or not. But if the TacAI thinks it provides better (directional) cover towards a particular enemy unit, then I trust it, although it looks odd, when foxholes get (partly) ignored.

[c3k]

Video comment about 3 Tigers... He specifies Tiger Is. They were obsolete by then anyway. Hence the Tiger II production. As mentioned, all heavy tank formations were arrayed against the commonwealth side of the lodgement.

[weapon2010]

On ‎7‎/‎4‎/‎2016 at 0:18 PM, c3k said:

He specifies Tiger Is. They were obsolete by then anyway

Tiger Is obsolete? huh?

[MikeyD]

Germany in '43 was already thinking of rearming Tiger I with the Panther 75 gun. They even had a Panther-style turret mocked-up. But they had a huge stockpile of ammo to burn through so they kept the 88 gun for logistics reasons.

[sburke]

2 hours ago, weapon2010 said:

Tiger Is obsolete? huh?

we are talking Germany here.  Rationality in production was never a serious aspiration.

[Anthony P.]

I don't know what was meant, but I suppose the case could be made that the Tiger was obsolete in the sense that though still being heavily armoured, it was no longer armoured enough that it could be relied on to withstand an encounter with an ordinary Allied tank unit, after the Firefly and 76mm equipped Shermans had turned up in the ETO.