Steel Inferno

[SimPar8]

Just been re-reading the excellent  "Steel Inferno" by Michael Reynolds and a couple of early passages on page 74 leapt out at me regarding recent posts in the forums.

"The 3rd Battalion, after arriving at Fontenay-le-Pesnel at midnight, left its SPWs there and marched forward in the early hours of the morning. On arrival in Cristot…"

Of course, one episode doesn't mean halftracks weren't driven en masse into the attack – but interesting.

Perhaps of more interest are the many descriptions of fights lasting many hours but resulting in what could, perhaps, be considered relatively light casualties. Here is one such account:

"The attack on Norrey by Krause's 1st SS Panzer-Grenadiers did not go well. They advanced across open fields in the dark at 0300 hours, but the company of the Regina Rifles defending the village fought doggedly…. Supporting artillery fire proved too effective and by 1100 hours Krause was forced to halt the attack with the loss of five killed and twenty wounded."

Eight hours for those losses suggests an awful lot of taking cover and maybe cautious probing attacks. Methinks many gamers with a mission time of an  hour/ hour and half would be somewhat more reckless!   It's a shame no ammunition expenditure figures are given.

[Michael Emrys]

2 hours ago, SimPar8 said:

Perhaps of more interest are the many descriptions of fights lasting many hours but resulting in what could, perhaps, be considered relatively light casualties. Here is one such account:

"The attack on Norrey by Krause's 1st SS Panzer-Grenadiers did not go well. They advanced across open fields in the dark at 0300 hours, but the company of the Regina Rifles defending the village fought doggedly…. Supporting artillery fire proved too effective and by 1100 hours Krause was forced to halt the attack with the loss of five killed and twenty wounded."

Eight hours for those losses suggests an awful lot of taking cover and maybe cautious probing attacks. Methinks many gamers with a mission time of an  hour/ hour and half would be somewhat more reckless!

At present the game under-represents the survival instinct of soldiers. The question is: would gamers be content with a more accurate representation? Or would they be screaming and cursing their soldiers for cowardice?

Michael

[Bulletpoint]

20 minutes ago, Michael Emrys said:

At present the game under-represents the survival instinct of soldiers. The question is: would gamers be content with a more accurate representation? Or would they be screaming and cursing their soldiers for cowardice?

I would like to see the game more realistic in this way. Maybe as an optional difficulty setting. But I doubt anything is going to change, after all it's a discussion that's been going on for years...

[JoMac]

Yeah, I'm with 'Point of Bullet, and Emery's of Michael'  here, and also think (as many do) that Casualties are alittle to High in CM, and having a 'Light Target' as a Standard Order, and or a better Savings Roll to represent troops taken better cover or using better survival instincts.

Yes, there has been many a discussion on this over the years. Basically, we get things from BF saying something like, "Think of CM as a Time Compressed Battle, what normally takes 30-60 minutes in CM is like Several Hours in RL"...Or..."Players push Troops to hard and in unrealistic ways.

I think CM simply hasn't gotten it right with the Game Engine in regards to Bullet Trajectory, Arty, Cover, Savings Roll, Ammo Expenditure, etc. 

So, in saying the above, I try to find ways to make Casualties in CM alittle more palatable...Using only Green, but with different levels of Leadership & Motivation to represent actual Green, Reg, or Vet troops in RL. 

Joe

 

Edited July 20, 2016 by JoMc67

[JoMac]

5 hours ago, Bulletpoint said:

But I doubt anything is going to change, after all it's a discussion that's been going on for years...

Oh Yes, it has changed thou, for the worse...After all, we got a Higher Rate of MG Fire, Higher Rate of Small Arms Fire at short range (both, in which we all wanted, right), Crews who instantly die when they unbutton (BF doesn't believe Bullet Trajectory should be Center-Mass...you know, like in RL, but instead, Bullets continuously hit top part of Vehicle), Arty that almost always KO's someone on the Battlefield far away from the Blast, etc, etc. Just to name a few. 

Sorry, I will try and Rant a little harder next time...Just not feeling up to it today. 

Edited July 20, 2016 by JoMc67

[RockinHarry]

There´s still small things that increase the pixel soldiers battlefield survivability through bits of modding (animation file changes). Getting them to drop to kneel or prone stance, when changing rifle and smg mags i.e. Currently when a soldier fires his rifle/smg while standing, he´ll reload clips and mags in same standing stance (same example for kneel). I see no reason for the soldiers to not go to full cover, as they neither do spot for the enemy nor shoot and just show a big target for a considerably time during an ongoing firefight. Wasn´t that a standard practice anyway? I think these stance changes should be implemented in the game and not achieved through modding.

[JoMac]

Yes, and Thanks for pointing out that helpful 'Animation' File you created RockinHarry...I use it, and it probably helps a little somewhat on the Battlefield.

Edited July 21, 2016 by JoMc67

[Bulletpoint]

8 hours ago, JoMc67 said:

Oh Yes, it has changed thou, for the worse...After all, we got a Higher Rate of MG Fire, Higher Rate of Small Arms Fire at short range (both, in which we all wanted, right), Crews who instantly die when they unbutton (BF doesn't believe Bullet Trajectory should be Center-Mass...you know, like in RL, but instead, Bullets continuously hit top part of Vehicle), Arty that almost always KO's someone on the Battlefield far away from the Blast, etc, etc. Just to name a few. 

Sorry, I will try and Rant a little harder next time...Just not feeling up to it today. 

Well I was mostly talking about the psychology of the soldiers to keep fighting, not so much the physical lethality of the weapons. I appreciate that small arms have been made a bit more lethal though.

[SimPar8]

It's also illuminating to consider what causes large numbers of casualties. Not exclusively - or in any particular order, but here  are what I consider to be some of the main causes of forces taking major casualties:

1. Poor strategy - offensives without proper reconnaissance or communications, poor force balance (too weak for job in hand) or units not being in right place at start

2. Poor tactics - armoured probes without infantry support, poor communications, poor recon.......

3. Cock-ups - resting up for a cup of tea (sort of) in armoured column on a restrictive lane - Villers Bocage

4. Being in the wrong place at the wrong time - coming under Naval bombardment/air attack (German forces) or Nebelwerfer attack (Allied forces)

CM does a great job of punishing poor tactics and elements of the other causes. It's up to scenario/campaign design to raise the risks or 1,3 and 4! But then people will moan when their forces are stopped in their tracks with no chance of attaining their objectives.

[Bulletpoint]

21 minutes ago, SimPar8 said:

But then people will moan when their forces are stopped in their tracks with no chance of attaining their objectives.

If you by "moaning" mean "people asking how to adjust their tactics to win a scenario", then yes, I've seen a lot of that on the forum    

As an example, just search for School of Hard Knocks and see how many posts there are about that. I haven't done a formal count, but based on memory, most of those posts were very mature and sensible.

[simon21]

In order to properly facilitate reluctance to move you'd need a system in the game way beyond what is present something that treated areas in relation to other areas.  Right now you can order people to charge machine guns at 800m and get slaughtered.  

At this stage the only way would be to have a human referee/GM/DM making decisions for both sides as to if moves were 'reasonable' and  that would bog down an already slow system.  

Even with finer control and better AI you couldn't really simulate this.  

Edited July 21, 2016 by simon21

[A Canadian Cat]

23 hours ago, SimPar8 said:

"The attack on Norrey by Krause's 1st SS Panzer-Grenadiers did not go well. They advanced across open fields in the dark at 0300 hours, but the company of the Regina Rifles defending the village fought doggedly…. Supporting artillery fire proved too effective and by 1100 hours Krause was forced to halt the attack with the loss of five killed and twenty wounded."

Eight hours for those losses suggests an awful lot of taking cover and maybe cautious probing attacks. Methinks many gamers with a mission time of an  hour/ hour and half would be somewhat more reckless!   It's a shame no ammunition expenditure figures are given.

Absolutely!  All the other chatter about the game engine not doing X right or should be doing Y are total red herrings.  If any one person above got his way 100% with the tweaks they want (just one person because a lot of these "BFC must fix" demands are at odds with each other:-) then not a damn thing would be different because people would still press and press etc. and cause all kinds of carnage.

I suppose an exception might be if soldiers were more likely to ignore your orders and the tougher the situation the less they would follow them.  Yeah that might reduce the casulties.  I'm not sure how much fun the game would be though.

The only thing I can see that might actually make a difference (using the current game that is) is fitting these battles into a operational or strategic layer where pushing until a unit is totally combat ineffective would have consequences for future battles.  I have played that way and it does make a difference but I still think we are too aggressive most of the time even then.

[A Canadian Cat]

16 hours ago, JoMc67 said:

Oh Yes, it has changed thou, for the worse...After all, we got a Higher Rate of MG Fire, Higher Rate of Small Arms Fire at short range (both, in which we all wanted, right), 

No, these changes are for the better.  Before the MG change you could charge a platoon at an MG nest in the open and win 100% of the time.  Now the MG team will shred the platoon.  There is no way anyone can successfully argue that the way it used to be is realistic.  It is now.

 

Quote

Crews who instantly die when they unbutton (BF doesn't believe Bullet Trajectory should be Center-Mass...you know, like in RL, but instead, Bullets continuously hit top part of Vehicle),

Sorry the argument that TCs should be immune to small arms 200m or 300m from enemy infantry make no sense. And if you were an infantry man shooting at a TC why would you aim for the centre of the tank?  That makes no sense either.  Honestly I just do not see why this keeps coming up.  This has never been a real problem - unbutton TCs are at risk when they get close to the enemy that's the way it should be.

 

Quote

Arty that almost always KO's someone on the Battlefield far away from the Blast, etc, etc. Just to name a few. 

You don't think that a piece of shrapnel from a large explosion could not cause a casualty 50m, 100m 200m away?  What does your physics calculation say is the cut off? Given that the frequency of this is very low even if it is wrong it is not a big deal.  I personally do not think it is wrong either.  I have never see that happen and say to my self "oh no way that's impossible".  I have said to my self "oh crap it had to be that solider that was taking out".

Edited July 21, 2016 by IanL
remove blank lines

[c3k]

21 hours ago, Michael Emrys said:

At present the game under-represents the survival instinct of soldiers. The question is: would gamers be content with a more accurate representation? Or would they be screaming and cursing their soldiers for cowardice?

Michael

Absolutely. If we changed the game so that the first time a soldier is wounded, your motherboard melts, many players would modify their assault tactics. (Think about it: a melted motherboard could cause $50 to $2,500 in damages, depending on what's in your box and how far the damage extends. If you take any wounded soldier and ask him, "I can turn back time and have you NOT get wounded, but it'll cost you a random amount from $50 to $2,500", I'd think EVERYONE would say "HELL, YES!")

Next, tell the player that they need to deposit the ownership of their house and car into an escrow account. If any soldier in CM dies, that escrow gets transferred to...me.  

Now, imagine how slowly the game would play out. And the rage-quit when the motherboard suddenly melts due to short artillery round.

 

I would never play such a game. 

Even ignoring real-world consequences, having pixeltruppen fear for their lives would make for a very long and unsatisfying game, realistic though it may be.

Ken 

[Placebo]

16 hours ago, JoMc67 said:

I think CM simply hasn't gotten it right with the Game Engine in regards to Bullet Trajectory, Arty, Cover, Savings Roll, Ammo Expenditure, etc.

I do not agree at all, I think CM has found a really good balance between realism and gameplay.

[Michael Emrys]

1 hour ago, IanL said:

You don't think that a piece of shrapnel from a large explosion could not cause a casualty 50m, 100m 200m away?

I used to have a neighbor who was in the Marines on Saipan. He was wounded, but not in the battle. After the island had been secured, he was talking to someone one day when the Seabees detonated a captured Japanese ammo dump and a fragment hit him in the neck. He didn't mention how far from the blast he was standing, but it couldn't have been very close or they would have been told to clear the area.

What does look peculiar sometimes is when several guys near the blast are untouched but another guy many meters away buys the farm. But that I can shrug off as just the luck of the draw, and it did happen in real life.

Michael

[Bulletpoint]

16 minutes ago, Michael Emrys said:

What does look peculiar sometimes is when several guys near the blast are untouched but another guy many meters away buys the farm.

This. I know weird stuff happens in real life, but it just seems somewhat skewed to me. Would be nice if they adjusted the "danger zone contrast" a bit to make close impacts more dangerous and distant impacts less so.

[MOS:96B2P]

2 hours ago, Michael Emrys said:

<Snip> What does look peculiar sometimes is when several guys near the blast are untouched but another guy many meters away buys the farm. But that I can shrug off as just the luck of the draw, and it did happen in real life. <Snip> 

A modern day example of this in real life was the Boston marathon terrorist attack.  And thanks to the 24 hour news cycle many of us probably saw it.  The film footage shows a detonation with some people still standing while other people, many meters further away from the detonation, fall to the pavement injured.   And it did look peculiar.  So much so that at the time, while the situation was still in the early stages of being reported, I remember people commenting that something other than the detonation must have hit those people.  (One theory was a sniper in addition to the bombs)  

So when I see this behavior during a PBEM game, like Michael said, I shrug it off.  (after cursing at the computer monitor.  I find this helps)    

[RockinHarry]

16 hours ago, JoMc67 said:

Yes, and Thanks for pointing out that helpful 'Animation' File you created RockinHarry...I use it, and it probably helps a little somewhat on the Battlefield.

Good to see at least someone tries it in practice and not just theoretically debates the suitabilty, particularly with concerns to cheating (if it ever gets confirmed by anbody).

It´s not much to add to battlefield survivability, but it at least makes the pixeltroopers look more like they know they´re in a dangerous environment.

[Erwin]

On ‎7‎/‎21‎/‎2016 at 7:49 AM, c3k said:

Absolutely. If we changed the game so that the first time a soldier is wounded, your motherboard melts, many players would modify their assault tactics. (Think about it: a melted motherboard could cause $50 to $2,500 in damages, depending on what's in your box and how far the damage extends. If you take any wounded soldier and ask him, "I can turn back time and have you NOT get wounded, but it'll cost you a random amount from $50 to $2,500", I'd think EVERYONE would say "HELL, YES!")

Next, tell the player that they need to deposit the ownership of their house and car into an escrow account. If any soldier in CM dies, that escrow gets transferred to...me.  

Now, imagine how slowly the game would play out. And the rage-quit when the motherboard suddenly melts due to short artillery round.

 

I would never play such a game. 

Even ignoring real-world consequences, having pixeltruppen fear for their lives would make for a very long and unsatisfying game, realistic though it may be.

Ken 

Motherboards melting and losing your house are extreme altho "realistic" re consequences heh.  But, in an online game I could see losing $1 per WIA and $2 for a KIA would be more than sufficient to motivate realistic behavior.  I like to think that I take care of my guys, but most/many WW2 scenarios force one to fight to the death to get a win.  I very much enjoyed (and still do) CMSF as most scenarios punished even minimal casualties quite severely with penalty points.  (Not sure about CMBS.)