:USERNAME: Posted July 8, 2000 Share Posted July 8, 2000 I conducted the following 'experiment' in light of the recent "MG effectiveness" and "Real World Defensive.." posts regarding firepower issues. My contention was that 1 defending platoon should consistantly be able to stop 2 attacking platoons usually but not an attacking company typically. I wanted a map that gave good fields of fire and chose a medium map with village, moderate tree coverage and gentle slopes. The forces were Whermacht vs US infantry. Platoons all consisted of 1 HQ and 3 squads. Forces then were Defender 31 men vs Attacker 80 men. I played as the German defender 10 times in a row (actually alot of fun) and recorded the following (in order): Axis win Draw Axis win Axis win US win Axis win . . . Axis win With 8 wins, 1 draw and 1 loss, this certainly seems to backup my contention. I generally had my german squads in the upper stories of buildings so as to draw blood till the US closed in. I would then fall back to positions where the german squads could all cover each others fronts with interlocking fire. German HQ was usually key to holding things together and more often than not payed the price. Of course this 'map exercise' honed my defensive chops and I could win more consistantly as the experiment went on. I tried to reverse the experiment as the attacker and computer defending but its apparent that I would quickly defeat the defending platoon because I would isolate one squad and rush it. I recorded 10 quick wins (most with low losses). The computer did not seem to be able to 'abuse' me this way when it was the attacker. Its apparent that I would 'abuse' my ability to just run all over the place and keep my squads in tip top shape. In real life, running tends to break up the formation of a squad. As a vet I can assure you that NCOs are always yelling to 'get your interval' (spacing between soldiers), 'cover right/left', 'watch your front', etc. This is important to keep the squad at low risk to firepower (dont bunch up) and to keep your firepower optimised (so you dont hold fire because a squad member is in your line of sight). When you are running (usually dashing a short distance), this will tend to 'string' out the squad. Faster men in the front, etc. You become an obvious target as motion more so than anything else catches the human eye (its from our hunter days). If you were to come under fire while running, the squad would lose alot of cohesion due to some people going to ground (either hit or involuntarily reacting to close hits/passing bullets). Its difficult to follow commands and your observation abilities in general suck. Its the LAST thing you would want to do while entering an enemy position (ie entering a house) as you are disorganized and entering piece meal (looks good in the movies but like kung foo movies its dumb). So IMO running in CM terms should have the following consequences: Disorginization (possible involuntary squad split result?) Reduced Firepower while running ('pinning' while moving?) Increased lethality (up the casualties while running?) Decreased spotting dramatically As an abstraction, perhaps the NUMBER of run commands that a player can give out needs to be limited per side depending on the number of squads/average rating of those squads (I was in Fort Bragg.. we ran alot)/leadership available. Its an issue that needs to be addressed. The game just kicks ass and I hope future efforts are more focused on realism as opposed to eye candy. Lewis PS My ego wont let me post what happened when I tried to stop 3 platoons of US infantry.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted July 8, 2000 Share Posted July 8, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Disorginization (possible involuntary squad split result?) Reduced Firepower while running ('pinning' while moving?) Increased lethality (up the casualties while running?) Decreased spotting dramatically<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Actually CM has all of these now (well, mostly ). But perhaps tweaking could be done. 1. It doesn't have 'disorganization' per se, but the fatigue model is meant to simulate this to some degree. Do you think squads should tire more rapidly? Or that the penalties for fatigue should be greater? 2. Firepower is reduced while running, and in fact most weapons (e.g. rifles) can't fire at all. You pretty much need an SMG. 3. Lethality is increased (to a running target). Should it be more? 4. Runners don't spot too well currently. But again, maybe the degree of penalty should be increased? Charles Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
:USERNAME: Posted July 8, 2000 Author Share Posted July 8, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software: 1. It doesn't have 'disorganization' per se, but the fatigue model is meant to simulate this to some degree. Do you think squads should tire more rapidly? Or that the penalties for fatigue should be greater? 2. Firepower is reduced while running, and in fact most weapons (e.g. rifles) can't fire at all. You pretty much need an SMG. 3. Lethality is increased (to a running target). Should it be more? 4. Runners don't spot too well currently. But again, maybe the degree of penalty should be increased? Charles<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> 1. Fatigue model is probably OK (if it models different states of fitness ie airborne being able to run in their sleep and volks troops getting winded from hurling a grenade..) I realize my 'splitting' of squads involuntarily would be a big coding chore but I , of course, like it. It would suck for an attacker to leave bits of half squads behind and in a pinned condition lets say. I also believe 'recombination' should only be possible once the 'halves' have attained the same state. 2. Pretty much agree with it the way it is then. In reality, we would practice a drill where when someone was getting too far out front he would stop, fire a clip, and reload so as to then be at the back of the group as it kept going. But we all had auto M16. As soon as someone would be hit, (laser miles system..) this nonsense would stop and we would seek cover. Running in the open in the face of automatic weapons is a nono. Not worth changing IMO. 3. WORTH CHANGING!! Easy tweak I suspect. May also calm the MG effectiveness crowd (they want their fire lanes). I am willing to test any tweaks BTW. Pinning penalties could be increased too? 4. WORTH CHANGING!!. Next time you go running try running in a field. Your vision is automatically going to be used directly in front of you. You cant help it. The bouncing also jars your vision and flopping gear is just distracting. I believe the US found marching fire a worthwhile tactic in WWII. It allowed lines of men to cover open ground and keep cohesion and fire on the enemy. Running has its place and is a great way to cover short distances in a short amount of time as long as used wisely. It should also not be allowed to be abused. You play you pay..I say. Lewis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Michael emrys Posted July 9, 2000 Share Posted July 9, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by :USERNAME:: 1. Fatigue model is probably OK (if it models different states of fitness ie airborne being able to run in their sleep and volks troops getting winded from hurling a grenade..) I realize my 'splitting' of squads involuntarily would be a big coding chore but I , of course, like it. It would suck for an attacker to leave bits of half squads behind and in a pinned condition lets say. I also believe 'recombination' should only be possible once the 'halves' have attained the same state.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Interesting approach. I hadn't thought of that, but might be willing to give it a try. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Running in the open in the face of automatic weapons is a nono.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Say it again, LOUDER. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>3. WORTH CHANGING!! Easy tweak I suspect. May also calm the MG effectiveness crowd (they want their fire lanes). I am willing to test any tweaks BTW. Pinning penalties could be increased too?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I still haven't played enough games to claim that it is a consistent game behavior, but I must say that I was surprised when I had a couple MGs targeting an SS squad in the open and they kept running back and forth in my field of fire without taking any casualties and without ever dropping to the ground. I think it is that last point that gets me the most. My impression is that grunts with any experience have a highly developed sense of self-preservation (even when it isn't a wise one), and their first instinct when fired on is to drop to the ground and crawl behind anything that offers the least cover/concealment. After firing pauses, they *might* get up and make another rush. But waltzing from pillar to post in the way I've seen more than once looks...distinctly odd. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>4. WORTH CHANGING!!. Next time you go running try running in a field. Your vision is automatically going to be used directly in front of you. You cant help it. The bouncing also jars your vision and flopping gear is just distracting. I believe the US found marching fire a worthwhile tactic in WWII. It allowed lines of men to cover open ground and keep cohesion and fire on the enemy. Running has its place and is a great way to cover short distances in a short amount of time as long as used wisely. It should also not be allowed to be abused. You play you pay..I say. Lewis<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Good points. If I have some open ground to cover between patches of cover, I run one or two squads while the rest provide overwatch. Then they reverse roles. This allows each squad to take a breather and somebody is always alert. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hunter Posted July 9, 2000 Share Posted July 9, 2000 BTS, I don't yet have the game (sob :_( ) but I have an opinion anyway (!) based on the demos and I thought I would throw in my two bob. 1. I think squads should tire more rapidly. At the moment you can run for about 3 minutes before tiring? I'm not sure that this shouldn't be tweaked down. Lewis makes a great point about the difference between Commandos and Volksturm. Some troops are just really fit, and should have different times before they get tired. I expect this may be code changes though, not just parameter tweaking. 2. ok 3. Peg it up a bit. I imagine the move as a firing line advance or a alternate gun / rifle advance by bounds. Running is just an all out charge? right? Of course, this still won't solve the problem of mgs not having fixed lines of defence etc. I think that should be addressed by giving them bonuses when firing enfilade. It would then make sense to follow IRL doctrine and have squad mgs defending across the front of neighbouring squads, rather than firing to the front in self defence. Anybody who gets shot in the flank by an mg (especially when running) deserves a bit of heat. 4. I am not really sure how it is simulated now (not enough experience playing) but I think that spotting should be pretty damn bad when running. Maybe tweak it down? (Reminds me of being in a training exercise when a female recruit dropped next to me on the ground while assaulting. She had her head pointed to the ground and I yelled at her to keep her eyes peeled ahead. She whimpered back that she couldn't raise her head (as the pack was up above her shoulders, pressing her head into the ground). She couldn't see more than about 2 ft, in front of her. Oh well, funny at the time Thanks for listening, Bruce Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
:USERNAME: Posted July 9, 2000 Author Share Posted July 9, 2000 Thanks for the feedback Another reason spotting while running should be heavily curtailed is the gamey tactic I use where I run a squad deep into the enemys positions. My telepathic omniaware troops can then get a running recon picture from him. I was thinking that troops that run a "distance" should be susceptible to a "pinned" state or maybe an automatic "hide" state. That is, when the running unit reaches the end of its run, there is a chance they will be put into some disadvantaged state. This would further limit the abuse of running into the enemys position. Sometimes high quality troops WOULD run into positions. Burgett in his books (is his market-garden book out yet?) describes the US airbornes attacks as stealthy infantry charges right into germans positions. Since he was describing grey haired defenders and they were all elite, fit, crazy 19 year olds, they could pull it off. Othertimes these airborne charges were shot down in waves during the bulge. So I dont want to eliminate it, just rectify it. Lewis [This message has been edited by :USERNAME: (edited 07-09-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark IV Posted July 9, 2000 Share Posted July 9, 2000 Involuntary squad-splitting (while running) would be much more likely in broken or wooded terrain. I kind of like it. I don't know why they would need to return to the same state in order to recombine, though, possibly barring the "pinned" status. Rested, ready, tired, or weary, together is together. The overall squad could take the average status of the recombined halves. Marching fire was a good tactic in the right situations, and helped overcome the US rifleman's tendency not to shoot without a definite target. It was not executed on the run, AFAIK. The whole unit fired on the advance at anything that looked like it could conceal a German- clumps of brush, etc. Doubler has a great little section on this (pp279-280): "In attacks across open ground, infantry platoons deployed into skirmish lines with their BARs and light machine-guns scattered along the line. The idea was for soldiers to keep pressing forward while throwing a wall of lead before them." He goes on to quote Patton's advice to Third Army infantry: "...One round should be fired every two or three steps... The whistle of the bullets, the scream of the ricochet... have such an effect that his small arms fire becomes negligible...Keep working forward...shooting adds to your self-confidence, because you are doing something." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tailz Posted July 9, 2000 Share Posted July 9, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mark IV: Marching fire was a good tactic in the right situations, and helped overcome the US rifleman's tendency not to shoot without a definite target. It was not executed on the run, AFAIK. "In attacks across open ground, infantry platoons deployed into skirmish lines with their BARs and light machine-guns scattered along the line. The idea was for soldiers to keep pressing forward while throwing a wall of lead before them." "...One round should be fired every two or three steps... The whistle of the bullets, the scream of the ricochet... have such an effect that his small arms fire becomes negligible...Keep working forward...shooting adds to your self-confidence, because you are doing something."<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> This was drilled as "Marching Fire", where one round was fired on the advance as the left foot hit the ground... intended for suppressive purposes, but I don't know how well the doctrine held up in the field. Does CM model individual 'peculiarities' of small arms. I refer to the rate of fire of the British Enfield... in the hands of a well trained soldier it could/did simulate a SMG. (using the middle finger on the trigger, Commonwealth troops could work the action with the thumb and forefinger) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
:USERNAME: Posted July 9, 2000 Author Share Posted July 9, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mark IV: I don't know why they would need to return to the same state in order to recombine, though, possibly barring the "pinned" status. Rested, ready, tired, or weary, together is together. The overall squad could take the average status of the recombined halves. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> It was just thinking out loud. Perhaps they would recombine into the lowest of the two states. I guess I want there to be a penalty associated with the disorginization that just occured. Sgts screaming at corporals screaming at privates for hauling ass away from the squad, etc. Just brainsttorming. Lewis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cueball Posted July 9, 2000 Share Posted July 9, 2000 One of the things that would result if squads were involuntarily split due to running would be more use of transport -- HT's, Trucks, etc. Currently, I find it a better use of my time to have to troops run, even on a significantly large map. If they had to walk or suffer some other inconvenience, I just might buy more transport. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TargetDrone Posted July 9, 2000 Share Posted July 9, 2000 Interesting Ideas all around... well... the thing about the squads splitting on their own sounds good.... as cueball stated, it would encourage the use of transports... and i also guess the lethality of running through lines of fire should be increased significantly... well , i only can tell what i have seen in the demo and read on the board, as the game didn't arrive here in Austria yet.. ------------------ TargetDrone who has a heart for smilies and will defend their rights .... even if the cost is bloody.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Rollstoy Posted July 9, 2000 Share Posted July 9, 2000 AutoSplitting sounds like a good concept! TargetDrone: Do not loose hope! I live in Vienna and I got it days ago, although it was addressed to AUSTRALIA! But at least somebody recognized 'Vienna', thank God! Regards, Thomm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark IV Posted July 9, 2000 Share Posted July 9, 2000 tailz: Nice trick. But if I drag the Enfield Mk V out of the closet, I'm willing to bet that with all the practice in the world I don't get anywhere close to 450rpm ROF. I can't really approximate those ROFs with my semi-auto Mini-30, for that matter, without one of those "devices". Username: Yes, average, or rounded down for most-winded section. Chain's weakest link and all that. Cueball: Depending on terrain you might be right. In urban and woods situations you'd better just strap on those track boots, though. Which leads me to add that Abandoned jeeps with perfectly serviceable .50s should be remanned (remannable?). Why would a Veteran jeep crew opt to run around with pistols (why do they only have pistols?) instead of returning distant fire with a perfectly good half-inch death ray, to support the platoon they are part of? I can understand un-assing the jeep in close combat (pardoning the expression) but this is quite different than Abandoning a tank with a hole in it. Even if the jeep is no longer a vehicle the .50 is still a BFG. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TargetDrone Posted July 9, 2000 Share Posted July 9, 2000 Rollstoy: damnit... if they have put australia on my parcel too, i got biiig troubles... i mean.. vienna is somewhat recognizable, but im living in judenau..... could be possible anywhere... well.. lets see, maybe it comes tomorrow... ------------------ TargetDrone who has a heart for smilies and will defend their rights .... even if the cost is bloody.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Michael emrys Posted July 10, 2000 Share Posted July 10, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TargetDrone: i mean.. vienna is somewhat recognizable, but im living in judenau.....<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Ah. In that case it is now sitting in a Post Office in Alaska while the staff tries to find your street address in their book. But don't worry, even those never-say-die Alaskans will give up eventually and return it to BTS. Then the whole process can begin again. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TargetDrone Posted July 10, 2000 Share Posted July 10, 2000 Oh well.. i don't fear it is located in alaska right now... but i fear it is on its way (or already reached) australia... don't ask me why, but it happens frequently that austria and australia get mixed up.... so far, 4 packets i received from america had an australian post stamp on it... i guess this time the same thing has happened.... funny... when i tell on the web im from austria, i often get the response"ahh the land of the kangaroos...." oh well... i can't stand this answer people, do something about your geography knowledge *starts boiling* phu... guess the lack of CM is slowly driving me mad.... *sighs* ------------------ TargetDrone who has a heart for smilies and will defend their rights .... even if the cost is bloody.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jarmo Posted July 10, 2000 Share Posted July 10, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tailz: Does CM model individual 'peculiarities' of small arms. I refer to the rate of fire of the British Enfield... in the hands of a well trained soldier it could/did simulate a SMG. (using the middle finger on the trigger, Commonwealth troops could work the action with the thumb and forefinger)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Peculiarities seem to be modeled. Enfield has higher rating (close range) than the german rifle, a bit lower than garand. Sounds just right to me. However, I can't believe anyone being able to shoot enfield *quite* as fast as SMG Must have sore fingers afterwards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
:USERNAME: Posted July 10, 2000 Author Share Posted July 10, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jarmo: Must have sore fingers afterwards.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> My friend and I are both engineers and gun nuts (he has a gun room in his house). We setup experiments with SKS and AKs and tried to see the fastest we could cycle through a clip. The best I could do, by bouncing the stock off my hip and counter bouncing the trigger finger, was about 5-6 a second. Not quite a smg but it sounded cool (extremely inaccurate and a waste of ammo but its cheap ex-soviet ammo). People at the range slowly gathered up their 22s and got the hell out of there. I am considering developing a CO2 charged trigger puller but wonder about the legality. I got alot of time on my hands..heheheh Lewis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark IV Posted July 10, 2000 Share Posted July 10, 2000 They make a little spring-loaded thingy that clamps on the rear of the trigger guard, and places just enough tension on the trigger. If you cradle the rifle loosely the recoil will fire the next round, with predictable results. This is supposedly legal, and it may as well be, since it's not much more accurate than what you describe. But if you float an empty bleach container down a little creek and you have piles of surplus Chicom ammo, it's good clean healthy fun the whole family can enjoy. If I can find the stupid thing I'll give it to you (thrill wore off and I dasn't make that kind of noise in Kalifornia). I was thinking a battery-powered drink mixer with a little cam, in the trigger guard... but I'm sure that's crossing some kind of line. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tailz Posted July 10, 2000 Share Posted July 10, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jarmo: Peculiarities seem to be modeled. Enfield has higher rating (close range) than the german rifle, a bit lower than garand. Sounds just right to me. However, I can't believe anyone being able to shoot enfield *quite* as fast as SMG Must have sore fingers afterwards.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I believe I have phrased my question poorly... I did not mean to say the Enfield performed as an SMG, but rather had a higher rate of fire than a standard bolt action rifle... "...All soldiers were trained to rapid fire the Enfield at 15 rounds per minute, a tremendous rate of fire for a bolt action rifle." In any event, I see above that the Enfield is modelled. Cheerio, tailz (still waiting in Canada) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jarmo Posted July 11, 2000 Share Posted July 11, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tailz: All soldiers were trained to rapid fire the Enfield at 15 rounds per minute, a tremendous rate of fire for a bolt action rifle." <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I remember reading a figure of 30 aimed shots per minute for a skilled user. Probably didn't include clip change. Still sounds very, very high. Your figure sounds more credible to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JeffRaider Posted July 11, 2000 Share Posted July 11, 2000 A few months ago I fired 30 bullseyes and near-bulls in one minute with an enfield. I had the clips stacked on a bench next to me, and shot from the kneel. I'm a very good shot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jarmo Posted July 11, 2000 Share Posted July 11, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JeffRaider: A few months ago I fired 30 bullseyes and near-bulls in one minute with an enfield. I had the clips stacked on a bench next to me, and shot from the kneel. I'm a very good shot. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Wow! At army, I had hard time firing 30 aimed shots with an assault rifle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hunter Posted July 11, 2000 Share Posted July 11, 2000 TargetDrone, I sympathise. Remember at the first Modern olympics when our man from down under won the sprint...they played the Austrian National anthem. Nice to know that it happens the other way too Bruce Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts