Realism Problems with Guns

[Dr. Brian]

Okay, first things first. I'm sure a search would find something on this. Thanks for the suggestion.

Now, why on earth are Guns (AT, INF, AA, etc.) so easy to knock out?

First, they are very easy to spot, and then, the one or two close placed shells from an AFV knocks the Gun out. Heck, even 50mm Light Mortars knock out the Guns. I've even seen a US squad throw snow balls at a German 88mm, and the German gun got knocked out!

What gives? It's like they are worthless in this game. I can maybe get one shot or two off before they are eliminated. Doesn't matter how much cover they have.

On another front, BTS should tweak the code somehow, that allows the Gun to fire at "Hard" targets or "Soft" targets only.

For example, I have an AT Gun overlooking a bridge. If I unhide the Gun (or use ambush), and infantry run by, the Gun exposes it's position and fires at the infantry, and wham, 1 turn later, it's knocked out.

Well, the Gun is my only AT unit, so I'm screwed.

However, if I used the hide command, and armor runs across the bridge,it will be to late to shoot the next turn, as it runs out of my LOS.

I see no reason why any unit can't be given "soft" or "hard" target orders, just like in Holdridges' TacOps.

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

Doc

God Bless Chesty Puller, Wherever He Is!

[This message has been edited by Dr. Brian (edited 12-27-2000).]

[Gremlin]

I think part of the problem may be that many CM battles are very small scale, with units right in each others' faces before you know it. AT guns tend to be more safely employed at longer ranges, afaik, though your kill chance is of course greater when the target is closer, because of muzzle velocity. The 88mm PaK 43 had a maximum range of 14,100 yards, for instance. Your best hope for them in CM seems to be careful positioning and hiding, and also massing them with overlapping fire lanes.

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

War is cruel and you cannot refine it. --Sherman

[This message has been edited by Gremlin (edited 12-27-2000).]

[Guest rune]

How are you using them? Do you hide them and wait for a side shot? Do you button the tank first? Do you have small fields of fire instead of trying to cover large areas of the map?

All these factors weigh in on what happens to them. Once they are spotted, and if you don't have a small arc of fire, the enemy is going to hit you guns with everything they have. Realistic? You bet. AT guns were feared, and the Americans especially would call everything they had down on any suspected location.

That being said, once relative spotting comes in with CM II, then not every unit will see the at gun, which will help.

Rune

[Guest Big Time Software]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Now, why on earth are Guns (AT, INF, AA, etc.) so easy to knock out? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Uhm... because they were Once a fixed emplacement was identified, and the enemy had some HE capability available, the gun's chances of surviving (in a typical sized CM battle) were limited.

There are four reasons why guns have shorter than expected lifespans in CM:

1. A CM battle is an even match fight, almost always with mortars/artillery present. Many of the situations that one reads about from the real war are NOT like this. In other words, 4 tanks bumble out into a field. 2 enemy AT guns knock them all out. Battle over. Not so in CM. Read a couple of AARs from real battles that are roughly like a CM engagement. You will see that guns didn't last too long after they revealed their positions.

2. Ranges in CM are typical combat ranges. Such ranges are not optimal for most AT/IG/Art guns. IGs and Artillery were supposed to be either fired indirectly (FOs in CM) or from near their maximum range. Not 300m-500m or so. AT guns, especially the German ones, were best if used at 1000m-2500m. This is not often found in a even match up battle in real life. Most often it would be like #1 above.

3. Tactical deployment. I think most people simply don't understand that guns are VERY fragile and shouldn't be put in very vulnerable positions. Say... on top of a hill that every enemy unit in the game can get a fix on. Very often the "best" firing positions are in fact the worst. LOS works both ways.

4. Absolute spotting and human "borg" control. This is one aspect that is not realistic, but is a fundamental part of the game. So on top of the other things mentioned above, a gun (or ANY unit) is in bigger trouble once spotted. First, because any friendly unit already in LOS of the gun will most likely fire at it if possible. This is not realistic all the time. Worse, the human player KNOWS where the gun is and can nearly instantly order any unit to attempt to take it out when realistically this would not be the case. In the future we can fix the Absolute spotting problem with a Relative spotting system, but the "borg" problem will alwayys remain. The best we can do is make it less effective.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>First, they are very easy to spot, and then, the one or two close placed shells from an AFV knocks the Gun out. Heck, even 50mm Light Mortars knock out the Guns.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why is this unrealistic in your opinion? Just because you don't like the result doesn't mean there is a problem. 50mm mortars might not be Big Bertha, but they were plenty capable of killing someone, or at the least making them want to go someplace safer.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>However, if I used the hide command, and armor runs across the bridge,it will be to late to shoot the next turn, as it runs out of my LOS.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Try using the Ambush command.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I see no reason why any unit can't be given "soft" or "hard" target orders, just like in Holdridges' TacOps.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is, overall, a very dangerous thing to introduce into CM. Trust me, if we put this in, someone would select "Hard Only" and have some infantry unit pull up and start wailing on the gun. The next thing we would see is some post here complaining about the gun not firing at "Soft" targets. It is a no win situation for us

The way it works now produces the best results, on average. No, that doesn't mean it is perfect and can read your mind. However, neither can distinct "Hard" and "Soft" targeting orders. Instead, the TacAI pays primary attention to Hard targets by default. If a Soft target presents a serious threat, or a very high chance of being picked off, the gun will fire. Using Hide and Ambush will reduce the odds of firing at Soft targets.

Steve

[This message has been edited by Big Time Software (edited 12-27-2000).]

[Guest Seimerst]

Gremlin, I know you know that there is a difference between maximum range and mamimum effective range which is much shorter. Optics is the principle limiting feature and the Germans had the best optics for most of the war. Sounds like you have mastered the use of AT guns.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The 88mm PaK 43 had a maximum range of 14,100 yards, for instance. Your best hope for them in CM seems to be careful positioning and hiding, and also massing them with overlapping fire lanes.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[Bil Hardenberger]

This criticism about guns in CM pops up periodically on this forum. I have used them effectively, and have had them used effectively against me. I do not think anything is broken in regards to guns in CM... in the Fire & Maneuver scenario AT guns are very effective because they are firing at over 2000 meters... they can kill several German vehicles before they are even spotted. Try using them at shorter ranges and they become very fragile, as they should.

Bil

[Gryphon]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>That being said, once relative spotting comes in with CM II, then not every unit will see that at gun, which will help.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What exactly is this relative spotting in CMII?

[This message has been edited by Gryphon (edited 12-27-2000).]

[Gremlin]

Seimerst, I know. I was just quoting that figure to emphasize that a number of assets in CM, like AT guns, typically have to be employed at atypically short ranges, which means they're easily spotted and knocked out, since they're essentially soft targets (discounting bunkers, of course).

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

War is cruel and you cannot refine it. --Sherman

[Dr. Brian]

Thanks for all the great input.

First, Steve's suggestion to use "Ambush" doesn't work (as I said in my original post). As I said, an infantry unit can "trip" that 88 into firing when it crosses the bridge. Then, the 88 is toast. And when it is your only AT weapon, you're screwed as the AFVs go rolling by.

Second, yes, I do think some of the fire power that is brought to bear on a Gun is too much. For example, the 50mm Light Mortar. Don't forget, these units had Gunshields.

However, more important, ONLY A VERY NEAR MISS will likely damage a gun and take it out of action.

In addition, please don't "assume" I'm employing Gun wrong. Considering that each situation (scenario) is different, their use will be dictated by the tactical situation. So when anyone asks me "how are you using them?" My answer is, "it depends on the scenario." What that means is I'm not stupid, and they are not sitting in the middle of the road looking down the bridge. Cover, fields of fire, enemy advance routes, your withdrawal routes, etc., are all examined and entertained.

My only point is, that after playing CM for a while, I have noticed that Guns are way too fragile, and this I think is ahistorical. Especially the "Knock Out."

Which brings me to "abandoned." Why on earth can a rallied crew take possession again and use the Gun or other support weapon?

And, what on earth is this "relative" spotting???? Please explain?

Thanks again for all your inputs!

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

Doc

God Bless Chesty Puller, Wherever He Is!

[Guest Big Time Software]

Dr. Brian wrote:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>First, Steve's suggestion to use "Ambush" doesn't work (as I said in my original post). As I said, an infantry unit can "trip" that 88 into firing when it crosses the bridge.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ah... OK, your example didn't hammer that point home. I'll check with Charles, but my understanding was that the gun would not fire at infantry type targets.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Second, yes, I do think some of the fire power that is brought to bear on a Gun is too much. For example, the 50mm Light Mortar. Don't forget, these units had Gunshields.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sheilds are simulated. But these shields are very light and, obviously, only protect the gun crew from a hit in FRONT of the gun. The great thing about mortar rounds is that you can drop them behind, to the side, or, in the case of a tree burst, above. A 50mm mortar is perfectly capable of knocking out any gun for exactly this reason.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>However, more important, ONLY A VERY NEAR MISS will likely damage a gun and take it out of action.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is totally realistic. HE is is designed to do exactly this. Near misses are all that is needed because the shell is designed to scatter death and destruction over a certain area (depending on the shell). This is the founding principle behind artillery. So I fail to understand why it is you feel this is unrealistic.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>In addition, please don't "assume" I'm employing Gun wrong.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No assumption made about you in particular. However, it is a more than common problem. As you have found out, it is not easy to utilize guns correctly and/or effectively.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>What that means is I'm not stupid, and they are not sitting in the middle of the road looking down the bridge.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Highly exposed, or obvious, positions are not the only bad places to put guns. Positions that have excellent concealment and firing arcs, but offer no flank protection (i.e. blocked LOS), are also of questionable value. Check out Rune's post above.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>My only point is, that after playing CM for a while, I have noticed that Guns are way too fragile, and this I think is ahistorical. Especially the "Knock Out."<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

A point that you have not backed up very well. You apparently lose your guns "too easily" and are blaming CM and not your tactics/circumstances. Based on your reasoning so far I believe you simply have unrealistically high expectations for their abilities in the typical CM type of engagement. Try the scenario Bil suggested as it shows off the optimal conditions for AT guns quite well.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Which brings me to "abandoned." Why on earth can a rallied crew take possession again and use the Gun or other support weapon?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The gun itself might be damaged. Contrary to your own feelings, a nearby HE hit could very easily damage the gun in some imediately meaningful way. Or, quite possibly, the crew wisely refuses to press their luck so quickly after escaping with their lives. If they have abandoned their gun it is because they feel all is lost for that position (otherwise they just hit the dirt and remain in position).

Remember, once a gun position is known... there is a LOT of interest in wiping it out. Gun crews know this. Now, this might not be 100% realistic in 100% of the circumstances. It is something we will keep in mind for the future. However, for a half hour pitched battle it is more right than wrong for a crew to lay low instead of remaning the weapon.

And it is pretty unrealistic to think that a Flak 38 gun crew, which has abandoned its weapon, would be able to remain a Pak 40 gun which was abandoned by its crew. It is like asking why can't a couple of truck drives hop into a tank and start effectively using it. These things required great amounts of training so a universal ability to man guns of any type is very unrealistic.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>And, what on earth is this "relative" spotting???? Please explain?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Mucho posts on this topic, which a Search will bring up. But the basics of it is that in an Absolute system (the way CM is now) once a unit is spotted, EVERY enemy unit can not see it. This is the way spotting works for every wargame I have ever seen. Relative spotting means that each individual unit must spot its own targets. So far as I know no wargame has ever done this. We intend to be the first Unfortunately, there are some pretty strong reasons why Relative spotting hasn't been done before. And therefore, don't expect it for CM2 - Eastern Front.

Thanks,

Steve

[David Aitken]

Dr. Brian wrote:

> Okay, first things first. I'm sure a search would find something on this. Thanks for the suggestion.

Just because you frame it with a knowing attitude doesn't make it any less lazy or parasitic. All the effort of two mouse clicks and the typing of "relative spotting" would have presented you with a mere 22 very relevant threads, one of which is the invaluable Gamey Recon?

[Jeff Heidman]

If anyone has ever seen an actual AT gun in action, they would realize that the gunshield is a joke. It is there to make the crew feel a little better, but it has no real effect.

Take a look at the size of the gun shield on the 76mm AT gun, and then figure out how the 4-6 men of the crew are going to fit behind it. It *might* slightly protect the actual gunner, but that is about it.

AT guns are ambush weapons. Once they are spotted, they are toast.

That being said, they can be extremely effective if positioned correctly. As was pointed out to me by Lt. Bull recently when is 76mm AT gun took out two Panthers in one turn before getting blown away.

Jeff Heidman

[Guest Big Time Software]

Jeff wrote:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>That being said, they can be extremely effective if positioned correctly. As was pointed out to me by Lt. Bull recently when is 76mm AT gun took out two Panthers in one turn before getting blown away.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

A perfect example of why AT guns, even if highly vulnerable, were worth the effort. In Jeff's case, one gun took out 2 Panthers. What are the relative costs for each weapon system? How long did it take to produce each? How much crew training was need for each? I have no idea, but it is clear that this one AT gun and crew had a very cost effective engagement

This is like a modern day missle system. One hears about the price of something like a $1 million dollar air to air missle and thinks "MY GOD that is a lot of money for a one shot weapon!". But when it has a high chance of knocking out a $25 million aircraft... well, not a bad investment

Incidentally, this is why the US Army is thinking about getting rid of main battle tanks as the primary heavy offensive/defensive weapons system. It costs millions of bucks to make one, plenty of cost to maintain, and all sorts of logistical headaches to use. And some modestly trained 3rd World soldier with a multi-thousand AT rocket can zap it before it even knows what hit it. Sure, the AT missle launcher will most likely get wiped out, but the damage inflicted before that will ensure that it "won". The WWII AT gun, with its great range and lethality, was used in a similar way. To expect an AT gun to survive an intense, close in battle is rather misguided.

Steve

[Doug Beman]

Dr. B, if you think guns are "vulnerable" now, just wait til East Front, especially when playing as Germans in the first year or so. When they started facing T34s with 50mm AT guns, they HAD to wait until the range was under 500m to have a chance. At that range, even the average Soviet tank gunner could land a 76mm HE shell close enough to get rid of the gun's crew.

As for the rest of the argument, I merely echo what everybody else has been saying. I'm VERY slowly learning the are of good gun positioning.

DjB

[illo]

Nice replies BTS!

Deploying AT-guns to low visibity areas, like in many places of NW europe needs different tactics than one would use at large open areas at eastern europe.

So my question is: Will CM2 model long range engagements better than CM1? Where optics quality and other such things play much larger role. Basicly can we expect to see realistic east front engagements?

[Dr. Brian]

Steve, thanks for all the great posts. Very insightful as to how CM and Gun development was designed, etc. Your commnets a GREATLY appreciated.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by David Aitken:

Just because you frame it with a knowing attitude doesn't make it any less lazy or parasitic. All the effort of two mouse clicks and the typing of "relative spotting" would have presented you with a mere 22 very relevant threads, one of which is the invaluable <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No sense responding to this any further. We can all just use the search since everything has been talked about, and no one should post anymore. Sheesh.

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

Doc

God Bless Chesty Puller, Wherever He Is!

[Naja]

Dr. Brian you might want to "pair" up your AT with a 20mm It works for me. As far as ineffective Ha! I just finished a PBEM where I came up against a Pak front. I killed all his tanks in first few turns and spent the rest trying to find his AT's throwing everything I had at them. I lost 4 Pumas , 2 Hertzer's a Panther, 6 HT's, 2 Stug's and 5 infantry guns. Against a dug in and well placed AT defense all the while dropping art on ther positions and yes smoke to. I finally had to dig them out with infantry.....He only had 7 AT guns

[David Aitken]

Dr. Brian wrote:

> We can all just use the search since everything has been talked about, and no one should post anymore. Sheesh.

Please explain why everyone must have such a black-and-white attitude towards the search function. They refuse to use it, and then when someone suggests they try, they take it to mean that they should always search and never post. Talk about one-dimensional.

You state yourself that you believe the search function could have answered your questions. So why the heck can't you use it? By all means, if you're asking a complex or obscure question, searching is maybe not the best idea. But try using the amazing power of intuition which humans possess, and if your question is obvious, such as "what is relative spotting?", do a search.

There are nearly ten-and-a-half thousand posts on the forum, and the search engine is extremely good at distilling them to less than fifty or a hundred on a given subject – provided you don't act like a brick wall and pretend you're too stupid to make it work.

David

[Dr. Brian]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by David Aitken:

Please explain why everyone ...

blah, blah, blah....<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Because the holier than thou attitudes of people that have to say do a search are just flat out inconsiderate... and obnoxious.

"Why on earth" (as you put it) would anyone want to filter down 10,000 + posts into 100+ topics, and then go through 100 topics is beyond me, when there are people GENEROUS enough with their time to help avoid wasting time... which is what I'm doing now by responding to your post. Let's try to stop, and get along. No need for your initial harrassement and continuing harrassment.

My $0.02.

Oh, and for your information, I just went back a while ago, and read some of the information. Much of it was good, but a lot of it was dribble as well, which, sadly, will happen to this thread.

Please lock this up.

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

Doc

God Bless Chesty Puller, Wherever He Is!

[David Aitken]

Dr. Brian wrote:

> Because the holier than thou attitudes of people that have to say do a search are just flat out inconsiderate... and obnoxious.

You started this thread with an "obnoxious" and "holier than thou" attitude, in proclaiming that you didn't care to use the search function. Those of us who promote the search function have extremely good reason for doing so – somewhere along the lines of helping you find the information you're after, and preventing the same old discussions recurring on the forum for no reason. Personally, I prefer to search for threads myself and provide a link, as I have done here – but if you start off by proclaiming the search function isn't good enough for you, you can expect a curt response.

> "Why on earth" (as you put it) would anyone want to filter down 10,000 + posts into 100+ topics, and then go through 100 topics is beyond me,

Maybe because this is made easy by the facilities provided by BTS, and in many cases quicker than waiting for a response, and you might actually learn other things in the process?

> when there are people GENEROUS enough with their time to help avoid wasting time...

They are wasting their time to save your time.

David

[Tiger]

errr.... Aitken, you're being a real jerk here.

-john

[Guest Big Time Software]

Dr. Brian wrote:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Because the holier than thou attitudes of people that have to say do a search are just flat out inconsiderate... and obnoxious.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, it cuts both ways. I for one dislike when people deliberately expect others (in particular me) to repeat something 100 times simply because one person has a bug up their butts about using the Search feature. NOBODY here was even remotely obnoxious about the Search function, and that is usually the case. On the other hand, the very first line of this thread was an overt and obnoxious comment that the utilization of the Search feature is somehow beneath you. In other words, you are so special that you everybody should spend their time catering to your needs.

I gave a quick answer for you in this thread and HELPFULLY suggest that you do a Search. What do you do? Post a new topic and then insult everybody (including me) for trying to be helpful.

Sheesh... now that I think about it I am sorry that I answered your question in BOTH threads since you obviously feel your time is more valuable than everybody else's. Next time I will just tell you to do a Search.

Steve

[Guest Scott Clinton]

David:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>You started this thread with an "obnoxious" and "holier than thou" attitude, in proclaiming that you didn't care to use the search function. Those of us who promote the search function...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Should perhaps post one time...and then butt out.

If his asking the same question that has been already answered (several times) before annoys you so much then leave this thread never to return. If it does not, then post something worthwhile other than "do a search" (like your response to me in another thread to a six month old, out-dated and misleading post!).

BTS's time is thier own. If they want they will respond...if not they won't.

But, your posts are worthless. They add absolutely nothing to the discussion at hand. So why make them??? This is a forum after (i.e. a place to hold discussions not searches).

Also, this discusion about obnoxious "search-freaks" has also been held before...so, do a search on it!

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

Please note: The above is solely the opinion of 'The Grumbling Grognard' and reflects no one else's views but his own.

[This message has been edited by Scott Clinton (edited 12-27-2000).]

[David Aitken]

Tiger wrote:

> errr.... Aitken, you're being a real jerk here.

Ooops, sorry for taking the time to do Dr. Brian's research for him and provide a convenient link to a thread which answers his questions. I should of course have ignored him.

Scott Clinton wrote:

> Should perhaps post one time...and then butt out.

Why, pray tell? Because you're pissed off that the thread you were deriding me in is now locked?

> If it does not, then post something worthwhile other than "do a search"

Compelling people to do a search is very worthwhile, but not only did I do this, I provided a link to the information Dr. Brian was too lazy to find for himself.

> (like your response to me in another thread to a six month old, out-dated and misleading post!).

That thread was itself a response to me, and I provided a link to the information I was referring to. It wasn't what you thought it was, but that doesn't make it outdated or misleading.

> But, your posts are worthless. They add absolutely nothing to the discussion at hand.

If so, then why were you holding a discussion with me?

David

[This message has been edited by David Aitken (edited 12-27-2000).]

[Sitting Duck]

I smell a padlock...

What useful purpose is served telling someone to do a search when they've already indicated they didn't want to bother with it?

If someone asks a question and you don't feel like answering...why not just skip the thread?

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

Steve of BTS - "With a company our size, every sale does in fact count (unlike every vote in certain assbackwards states )."