Some thoughts on "Target Armour Arc"

[rocketman]

I have a situation in a current game where I have PIAT teams facing a massive attack of both Panthers, StuGs and Halftracks. I set the Target Armour Arc and the first thing that happens to enter the arc is a halftrack (that I take out) and another halftrack (that is damaged and retreats) but no tries on either a Panther or StuG (by pure chance). Of course I would have liked them to use their precious chances to take out a major target rather than the halftracks. I have had in previous games where armoured cars get the same treatment.

So, I'm leaning toward actually wanting the Target Armour Arc to only go for tanks and that soft skinned vehicles would be covered by the regular arc. Ideally another command, but I suspect it would be much easier to change the parameters for the Target Armour Arc instead.

Actually, the same thing goes for AT guns, who are so vulnerable once they fire their first shot. I want them to prioritize the first tank that comes into view and not a soft skinned vehicle that is nearby.

Any thoughts?

[Howler]

Assuming your PIAT had all three spotted, which target was closest? Which target presented the more immediate threat? I'm also assuming at the time it fired - it had solid spots on all targets.

I generally use TAs to define/limit fields of fire. I'll use a TAA to rotate a turret ahead of time to shave seconds off a spot-fire cycle. I'd like to believe this (TAA) also results in infantry which may be in front of the intended target being ignored.

Otherwise, I'm generally satisfied if the AT team/gun doesn't reveal its' position by wasting a round into screening infantry.

Should I be expecting it to do more?

In a target rich environment where I need to select the most appropriate target - I place a tight TAA around the asset hoping that next turn I can simply draw a target line to exactly where I want it. Again, the alternative being letting the TacAI do it's thing given the parameters of the moment and not on factors guessed at during the command phase... 

[Bulletpoint]

I understand it's frustrating to waste a valuable AT asset on a halftrack or armoured car, but I actually think it's a valid gameplay design decision to have it work like this. It allows the attacker to use light armour to bait the defender into revealing his positions.

If you really want to prevent firing at lesser targets, you can make a very short arc, and then manually give a target order once your enemy's prime asset rolls into view.

[Erwin]

5 hours ago, Bulletpoint said:

It allows the attacker to use light armour to bait the defender into revealing his positions.

If that is a valid RL tactic, that is fine.  But, is having another lighter armored vehicle expose itself to get KIA to protect a higher value AFV what is done in RL, or is it gamey?

Right now I am wrestling with the exact same dilemma in a mission in Snake Eye's very good "The El Derjine Campaign" (CMSF).  I want to place my tanks and TOW vehicles in hull-down positions to cover my advance.  However, the enemy has multiple ATGM's covering my approach and potential hull-down positions.  I need the ATGM's to expose themselves so that they can be killed with artillery.  Obviously, I don't want the ATGM's to pick off my M1's.  I have a number of Humvees and other armored IFV vehicles.  Do I send the lightly armored vehicles on suicide missions to draw fire?

 

[Bulletpoint]

14 minutes ago, Erwin said:

If that is a valid RL tactic, that is fine.  But, is having another lighter armored vehicle expose itself to get KIA to protect a higher value AFV what is done in RL, or is it gamey?

Not sure. I'm no expert. But I assume that light armour was often used in a screening role, which I guess also means to keep pushing forward as long as the enemy doesn't put up any serious resistance. When the main line of defence is found, that's when you bring up the real tanks. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

[Erwin]

That makes sense.  But, you are specifically implying that one should sacrifice the halftracks to save the tanks - kinda playing vs the game system re how Armor Covered Arcs function.  

[rocketman]

18 hours ago, Howler said:

Assuming your PIAT had all three spotted, which target was closest? Which target presented the more immediate threat? I'm also assuming at the time it fired - it had solid spots on all targets.

[snip]

It was a confused situation with many vehicles close together at about the same distance (some 80-100 m) coming in and out of LOS due to smoke and trees/hedges. It fired at the first solid contact which was a halftrac despite a Panther being right next to it but just for the moment blocked by smoke.

Edited October 28, 2020 by rocketman

[rocketman]

8 hours ago, Bulletpoint said:

I understand it's frustrating to waste a valuable AT asset on a halftrack or armoured car, but I actually think it's a valid gameplay design decision to have it work like this. It allows the attacker to use light armour to bait the defender into revealing his positions.

If you really want to prevent firing at lesser targets, you can make a very short arc, and then manually give a target order once your enemy's prime asset rolls into view.

On the flip side, the defender has no choice not to take the bait, which IMHO sucks. Especially for AT assets that can be area target into oblivion after the first shot. Or just plopping down a point arty mission.

A short arc wouldn't have helped in this situation as all vechicles were close passing from left to right.

[rocketman]

2 hours ago, Erwin said:

If that is a valid RL tactic, that is fine.  But, is having another lighter armored vehicle expose itself to get KIA to protect a higher value AFV what is done in RL, or is it gamey?

Right now I am wrestling with the exact same dilemma in a mission in Snake Eye's very good "The El Derjine Campaign" (CMSF).  I want to place my tanks and TOW vehicles in hull-down positions to cover my advance.  However, the enemy has multiple ATGM's covering my approach and potential hull-down positions.  I need the ATGM's to expose themselves so that they can be killed with artillery.  Obviously, I don't want the ATGM's to pick off my M1's.  I have a number of Humvees and other armored IFV vehicles.  Do I send the lightly armored vehicles on suicide missions to draw fire?

 

What I do in modern titles if I want the enemy to expose its ATGM assets is to be just in cover, then drive forward and pause for 10-15 sec depending on distance. An ATGM far away usually takes time to reach its target and will have a much harder time to hit a moving target as well.

[rocketman]

2 hours ago, Bulletpoint said:

Not sure. I'm no expert. But I assume that light armour was often used in a screening role, which I guess also means to keep pushing forward as long as the enemy doesn't put up any serious resistance. When the main line of defence is found, that's when you bring up the real tanks. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

I think they did, but at a far longer distance ahead. Recon is usually done with lighter vehicles. I'm talking PIAT distance here so 160 m max. Close combat essentially.

[rocketman]

The next turn I gave the PIAT team a specific target on the closest Panther. They didn't fire despite not suppressed, they got some light fire from a halftrack backing away. The TacAI overtook my order and they fired at the halftrack and missed. Then immediately hosed down by the Panther killing the PIAT dude. Oh well, war is hell and all that...

[Erwin]

35 minutes ago, rocketman said:

if I want the enemy to expose its ATGM assets is to be just in cover, then drive forward and pause for 10-15 sec depending on distance. An ATGM far away usually takes time to reach its target and will have a much harder time to hit a moving target as well.

Yeah... this is the only way I have found do do it also.   Up to 10 seconds of reveal is a calculated risk.  Over 10 seconds is a much higher risk.  Experienced ATGM units can acquire and shoot quickly and some missiles are very fast.  

Am also experimenting with sending up vehicles in enemy view for 5-10 seconds as decoys simply to attract the attention of ATGM's (and other enemy tanks and IFV's), then having the "killer" units like M1's or TOW missile vehicles come up in the hope that they may be able to aim and fire for 10-15+ seconds while the enemy is focused on the decoy vehicles.  

The CMSF "El Derjine" campaign features several missions that require that sort of risk taking in order to ID enemy ATGM's.

It is very, very hard to use TOW missile vehicles or vehicles with laser designators and other high end optics like arty spotter vehicles or recon vehicles the way that (I think) they are supposed to be used in RL, because "hull-down" for them does not merely expose the optics on the roof of the vehicle but actually exposes the top of the vehicle and they don't survive very long.

It may be a good idea in future CM2/CM3 iterations to somehow make such vehicles harder to spot (assuming the game cannot simulate telescoping optics).

 

[John1966]

3 hours ago, Erwin said:

But, is having another lighter armored vehicle expose itself to get KIA to protect a higher value AFV what is done in RL, or is it gamey?

I tend to think that's gamey but I certainly do it. I've charged tanks with infantry to provide them with a "target rich environment" so that they're occupied when my tank makes its move into LOS. Usually works but I feel dirty. 

[Bulletpoint]

1 hour ago, rocketman said:

A short arc wouldn't have helped in this situation as all vechicles were close passing from left to right.

OK, I see. But that kind of fine-grained situation is getting into special forces tactics. You'd need very well trained and led troops to set up such a specific ambush.

And even if you did have a special "target only heavy armour arc" you'd get into many grey areas. Many armoured cars are basically small tanks on wheels. Should they be targeted? How about the German halftracks with heavy guns? How about a Stuart, is that a real tank or should the command wait for a Sherman? Or a Firefly?

I'd still say the best would be to set a short target arc to prevent firing. Hide, then watch the sound contact markers pass by. Light vehicles have a different marker than heavy tanks, so you should be able to realise from about 400m that a convoy of vehicles is approaching and that there's a light vehicle or two at the front. Wait till the light armour passes, then unhide and make the arc bigger.

[John1966]

Actually can someone clarify armour arcs for me? If you set one, will they ignore infantry outside it?

 

[Bulletpoint]

3 minutes ago, John1966 said:

Actually can someone clarify armour arcs for me? If you set one, will they ignore infantry outside it?

 

If you set one,they will ignore all infantry and only fire at armour inside the arc. This is very useful, also to defeat "dirty tricks" like the one you described above.

Edited October 28, 2020 by Bulletpoint

[rocketman]

31 minutes ago, Bulletpoint said:

OK, I see. But that kind of fine-grained situation is getting into special forces tactics. You'd need very well trained and led troops to set up such a specific ambush.

And even if you did have a special "target only heavy armour arc" you'd get into many grey areas. Many armoured cars are basically small tanks on wheels. Should they be targeted? How about the German halftracks with heavy guns? How about a Stuart, is that a real tank or should the command wait for a Sherman? Or a Firefly?

I'd still say the best would be to set a short target arc to prevent firing. Hide, then watch the sound contact markers pass by. Light vehicles have a different marker than heavy tanks, so you should be able to realise from about 400m that a convoy of vehicles is approaching and that there's a light vehicle or two at the front. Wait till the light armour passes, then unhide and make the arc bigger.

I beg to differ - not that hard at all for regular troops. "Guys, we're being overrun. Hide behind the bocage and hit the first tank you see then get the heck out of there. Find another position, rinse and repeat."

Tank Arc would be anything with a gun bigger than 37 mm but not halftracks with guns because those crewmembers die by the first shot anyway, before being able to say "I'll man the gun". 

[Bulletpoint]

3 hours ago, rocketman said:

I beg to differ - not that hard at all for regular troops. "Guys, we're being overrun. Hide behind the bocage and hit the first tank you see then get the heck out of there. Find another position, rinse and repeat."

Easy to give the order maybe, but do you think average Joe Trooper will keep his cool and calmly let those German armoured cars roll by? I think regular WW2 troops would be pretty jittery when getting overrun. Executing a normal ambush would be hard enough, cherrypicking enemy targets would be even harder. 

[rocketman]

53 minutes ago, Bulletpoint said:

Easy to give the order maybe, but do you think average Joe Trooper will keep his cool and calmly let those German armoured cars roll by? I think regular WW2 troops would be pretty jittery when getting overrun. Executing a normal ambush would be hard enough, cherrypicking enemy targets would be even harder. 

An analogy - you and your platoon-mates are hiding behond some bushes when a German squad walks by. Do you shoot the guy with the MG42 first or the ones with rifles?

I have to check again the number I heard recently about how many Soviet tanks that were taken out by Volksturm with Panzerfausts. Quite many IIRC. Hardly elite units. Will keep it in the back of my mind when F&R is out.

[slysniper]

How is sending light armor in front of heavy armor gamey, that is called Scouting and yes it was done in RL also.

The units under Patton had the tendency to do it with a few guys in a jeep, so gamey tactics reflect RL or RL reflects the game. 

Whatever, I think it is a good point in that maybe more control in the next version of the game would be a nice additional feature.

 

Presently, your only option is to stay hidden and hope that the main targets also move into view. but holding out for the main asset has the risk of what happened. The more enemy you allow to get into range, the easier it is for them to overwhelm and kill you once you open up.

 

So, accepting killing the light unit and being positioned to get out of dodge might be the better move.

If I am alive and a threat, that might be all i need to screw my enemy up.

 

[Bulletpoint]

9 hours ago, rocketman said:

An analogy - you and your platoon-mates are hiding behond some bushes when a German squad walks by. Do you shoot the guy with the MG42 first or the ones with rifles?

I understand well what you are saying and it makes sense in a rational way. I just don't think average soldiers in WW2 could always keep their cool like that. You're in a platoon of what, 30 really young guys? They haven't slept for days and they have been shelled and maybe lost friends. Now suddenly Germans walk past. Who knows if there will be a guy with an MG. Who knows if the next moment, they'll spot you and your mates?

[John1966]

2 hours ago, Bulletpoint said:

I just don't think average soldiers in WW2 could always keep their cool like that.

I'd agree with that most of the time. One thing to hold your fire until they're within a certain range but entirely another to ignore a target because there might be a better one. I'd have thought that in the heat of battle most people would just fire on anything they identified as being the enemy. Everything happens fast and you wouldn't have the thinking time to make tactical decisions like who is best to shoot at. Just get them before they get you. Identifying whether someone is carrying an MG42 or a rifle wouldn't be a priority.

And I say "most of the time" as there would be exceptions. Snipers picking out officers etc. 

[Erwin]

56 minutes ago, John1966 said:

One thing to hold your fire until they're within a certain range but entirely another to ignore a target because there might be a better one. I'd have thought that in the heat of battle most people would just fire on anything they identified as being the enemy.

Interestingly, in the CM2 game system the less experienced troops will hold fire until something enters their arc.  The most experienced troops are the ones most likely to engage enemies outside their arc.

[MOS:96B2P]

34 minutes ago, Erwin said:

Interestingly, in the CM2 game system the less experienced troops will hold fire until something enters their arc.  The most experienced troops are the ones most likely to engage enemies outside their arc.

In my experience with soft factors it is the motivation level that plays the biggest role.  A Fanatic will almost never shoot outside their given Target Arc.  There are forum topics on High motivated tank commanders not buttoning up quick enough and getting shot.  The player ordered the tank to open up and the High motivation TC attempted to follow orders.  A low motivated TC is quicker to disregard the order and button up. 

IMO Experience effects if they hit what they shoot at.  Motivation effects, among other things, how close they stick to orders.     

[rocketman]

Ok, my analogy aside...the crux of my argument is that if there is a situation where I know that my pixeltruppen are aware of several armored targets in their close proximity and I want them to go for the biggest threat if they are to reveal their postition, there is no command to do that in an efficient way. The TacAI are not situationally aware in that regard. So they will by mistake or chance go for a lesser target, which results in a missed opportunity. Sure nitty gritty stuff, but still.