AT guns, a general question about when to fire.

[John Kettler]

chuckdyke,

In the prepared defense, what you say would make sense, and such installations were shown in that Sacred War video, but the accounts I read mentioned no field phones. It's absolutely true that the US supplied vast amounts of commo wire, field phones, switch boxes and more to Russia. This is readily verifiable in the Lend Lease shipment lists on HyperWar.

All,

Something worthy to note is that the Cover Armor Arc is the plan, if you will, but not necessarily the reality. The AI can, will and sometimes does override your plan, including firing prematurely and even engaging out of sector, for example. This is the result of the rightly dreaded under the hood calculations over which you are powerless. While you may think you're issuing orders, as far as the AI is concerned, they're more like strong suggestions. My understanding is that the better quality your troops, the better their morale and fatigue status, the more likely your plan will be followed. Since the typical CMx2 game for the defender involves very few ATGs and such, things like premature opening of fire can severely damage defense integrity when the offending weapon is dealt with quickly and decisively by direct and indirect fires. Similarly, an ATG which engages out of sector may create a de facto breach in the defense, allowing the enemy, whether AI or human, to go where their should be no way in.

The above reminds me of something sorely missing from the CM games from the get: the At My Command order to open fire. If you watch Russian war movies and series especially, the ATGs are rigidly controlled until explicitly ordered to fire (Ogon!), so as not to give away the battery position until crushing surprise fire can be delivered at very high Ph from close range. Not only is this an issue for AT ambushes but also for infantry ambushes. Haven't played CMSF, so can't speak to that, but have handled a hasty AT defense in CMBS. In none of them have I found a properly implemented capability to open devastating, stunning, simultaneous fire to gain fire superiority. As a result, ambushes don't work in-game anywhere nearly as well as they do in real combat. In turn, this causes significant losses which shouldn't be sustained. This is especially true when facing a high quality foe with modern equipment in CMBS, where a poorly executed attempt (uncooperative AI when using Cover Armor) to apply simultaneous fire to a larger heavily armed foe can get the defense shredded in a handful of minutes, if that. TOW 2B is a marvelous weapon, but if the struck T-90 series tank survives or has friends looking the right way, at typical combat range, the life expectancy of the firing Bradley CFV is likely to be exceedingly short, especially since there isn't very good modeling of hull down, leaving a huge chunk of the house on tracks Bradley CFV exposed when only the turret should be hittable.

Regards,

John Kettler

Edited April 16, 2021 by John Kettler

[chuckdyke]

@John Kettler It is part of the generic nature of the game. Example in Normandy the US Airborne had a cricket device to signal a friendly. Germans had a flashlight for short range signaling. I don't find much problem that some HQ don't have a radio but still call-in artillery. I think the defender as there are too many means to mention in which they can communicate should show in contact more often. Happy gaming. 

[Sven]

As always, my AT-guns (at least the first two in this case) got spotted before opening fire and knocked out. This on more than 1000 meters distance when there's no point in opening up vs a Panther.

I have no clue how to handle them, it seems. I tend to lose tanks when against them and fail to knock out tanks when I have them.

Should I have opened fire, hoping to damage it or what?

(Also, why on earth don't units return fire when spotted and on an Arc? It's ridiculous that they just sit there, taking it).

[chuckdyke]

5 minutes ago, Sven said:

I tend to lose tanks when against them and fail to knock out tanks when I have them.

It is the AI when you fight against them and when you have them you may plot them manually. Tactics would be 'Lure and Trap' in North Africa it was Rommel's tactic. Start a battle and withdraw into the area which your ATG's have covered. To be successful in CM you need to apply combined arms. Individual units against the AI tend to come out 2nd best. The AI for the player is the TacAI it comes into its own when you use combined arms. Regard ATG'S like you use AT-Mines they have cover-arcs and are on hide armor entering their area will be their trigger. 

[Sven]

The problem here is that they get spotted before I fire myself. (It's Gog and Magog v. human player. Never played before).

[chuckdyke]

3 minutes ago, Sven said:

The problem here is that they get spotted before I fire myself.

I think your opponent spots the foxholes but not the ATG's. They are deemed to be camouflaged if you don't change their position during the game. Alt+T makes the foliage disappear and trenches and foxholes will be exposed, or you see a dent the giveaway of manmade structures. We make some player rules to address this. 

[Sven]

I always play the same friend and I do think he plays fair, but I'll ask.

At any rate; is there any point at all opening up early? Any hope of any damage on a King Tiger or a Panther at 1K?

[chuckdyke]

3 minutes ago, Sven said:

At any rate; is there any point at all opening up early? Any hope of any damage on a King Tiger or a Panther at 1K?

The AI opens up far too early in my opinion. The AI commits T34/76's in some sort of suicide charge. The effect is the King Tigers suffer damage on their optics or their mobility suffer too. In all honesty the position of the ATG's are not hard to guess. I plotted area fire with the 120 mm mortars and adjusted the moment they give their positions away. The editor made the first defense expendable to give the JSII's a better chance. 76mm against any German cat 500 meter from the side, but that was not the battle plan of the editor. To play against a human player I would start from scratch change positions of trenches and foxholes. I don't like to make anything expendable. 

[Sven]

He spotted the sandbags. Typical CM.

And now he's spotted four of them, by going after the sandbags. Useless.

Edited April 16, 2021 by Sven

[John Kettler]

1 hour ago, Sven said:

He spotted the sandbags. Typical CM.

And now he's spotted four of them, by going after the sandbags. Useless.

Are you talking about entrenchments or foxholes?

Regards,

John Kettler

[Sven]

Stacks of sandbags behind which the guns are placed.

[KGBoy]

It would strike me that if your ATG can see for 1000m one should be firing at 1000m. Otherwise why have that much of a view?

[Sven]

29 minutes ago, KGBoy said:

It would strike me that if your ATG can see for 1000m one should be firing at 1000m. Otherwise why have that much of a view?

In this case it was a - now deceased - 76 mm Soviet gun v. Panthers. No point...

[John Kettler]

KGBoy,

Russian antitank gun doctrine was not to fire at maximum range, because of low hit probability and giving the enemy the opportunity to detect and attack the gun positions before really effective range for them was reached. Instead, the Russian practice was to hold fire until the Panzers were in the high probability of hit range, but not so close they could easily overrun the guns. As I stated above, the open fire range for the 45 mm was 500 meters and 750 meters for the more powerful and longer range 76.2 mm ZIS-3. The idea was to deliver surprise fire at close range to shock and disrupt, then bury the Panzers under a hail of follow up fire. This simply can't be done at longer range.

Regards,

John Kettler

 

[Redwolf]

Watch the damage display on Panzers that are being shot at and survive.

The optics are almost always damaged on deflected shots to the front. So clearly it is better to open up before being spotted, trading the gun for degraded tanks. Because that's the best trade you gonna get.

[Sven]

Just now, Redwolf said:

Watch the damage display on Panzers that are being shot at and survive.

The optics are almost always damaged on deflected shots to the front. So clearly it is better to open up before being spotted, trading the gun for degraded tanks. Because that's the best trade you gonna get.

Sure is. Especially since it seems impossible to avoid detection when there are sandbags involved.

[chuckdyke]

In Gog and Magog, you see nothing when you start the game. They become visible once the ATGs open up. I just put the veteran FO in the farming complex facing them. He soon drops 120 mm mortars on them. Reason you should play a human player. The AI doesn't figure out that obvious observation post. 

[John Kettler]

On 4/15/2021 at 9:32 PM, chuckdyke said:

Field-Telephone lines like a static defense as in Kursk were run out. C2 in regards of the defender should take this into account. The Soviet Army was excellent in defense this may have been one of the reasons. 

chuckdyke,

In the Sacred War video I now can't find anymore, field phones are shown explicitly, but only down to battery level, not the individual guns. Were it not for LL, the Russians would've been screwed on the comms, for we supplied astronomic amounts of field telephone wire, plus scads of handsets, switchboards, etc.

Regards,

John Kettler

Edited June 17, 2021 by John Kettler

[John Kettler]

From what I've experienced in CMx2 there are only two places (short of being inside a pillbox, if that's possible) where an ATG can be placed and not spotted right away for the reasons given: grass and from well to the rear of the ostensible front line and also a crater. Neither of these provides the visual cues that allow pre-emptive targeting based on the presence of sandbags. Once had an ATG in a crater kill multiple AFVs which were located on a ridge well above it.

Regards,

John Kettler

[chuckdyke]

28 minutes ago, John Kettler said:

pre-emptive targeting based on the presence of sandbags.

I quote Gog and Magog and I play on Iron. The positions with sandbags are not revealed till the ATG's start firing. 59 minutes left to play. The observer was present on the 2nd floor from the beginning. I know now that the position has an ATG with sandbags, just replayed it as a test. Home rule don't shoot at foxholes or sandbags till at least a unit with C2 leading back to an observer spot it with at least a sound contact icon. Tactically it makes sense pillboxes, trenches, or foxholes maybe a ruse to give your position away.

[Erwin]

3 hours ago, chuckdyke said:

don't shoot at foxholes or sandbags till at least a unit with C2 leading back to an observer spot it with at least a sound contact icon. Tactically it makes sense pillboxes, trenches, or foxholes maybe a ruse to give your position away.

Smart designers set many empty defensive positions to do that - so one can waste ammo.  It's best and more "realistic" to get positive ID as Chuck says.

[BornGinger]

12 hours ago, Erwin said:

Smart designers set many empty defensive positions to do that - so one can waste ammo.  It's best and more "realistic" to get positive ID

It would be more realistic if foxholes and trenches weren't as visible as they are. If foxholes were just holes in the ground and more scattered instead of being four together and if trenches were designed differently too and none of them had sandbags they would all be harder to spot which would make their existence more of a surprise.

There wouldn't then be any reason to try to be a "smart designer" and fill the scenario maps with empty foxholes and trenches.

I hope Battlefront will make changes to how foxholes and trenches look and work to have them do that more realistically.

Edited June 18, 2021 by BornGinger

[womble]

2 minutes ago, BornGinger said:

It would be more realistic if foxholes and trenches weren't as visible as they are. If foxholes were just holes in the ground and more scattered instead of being four together and if trenches were designed differently too and none of them had sandbags they would all be harder to spot which would make their existence more of a surprise.

There wouldn't then be any reason to try to be a "smart designer" and fill the scenario maps with empty foxholes and trenches.

I hope Battlefront will make changes to have foxholes and trenches look and work more realistically.

Just making them harder to spot than a big retroreflective blanket would be a start. I know they're "just expedient excavations", but most of the time you're better off without 'em.

 

[Bulletpoint]

3 hours ago, womble said:

Just making them harder to spot than a big retroreflective blanket would be a start. I know they're "just expedient excavations", but most of the time you're better off without 'em.

 

Their visibility should just be made to match the unit occupying them. Easy fix.

Empty fortifications: Low risk of getting spotted.

Occupied fortifications: Low base risk of getting spotted AND get spotted when occupying unit gets spotted.

[KGBoy]

Perhaps I am mistaken but the AI seems more like a cat's attention. It can only focus on one thing at a time. Distraction seems like the best idea before opening fire.