Pillboxes - some CM modelling issues

[Tiger]

Pillboxes more deadly?!, increased tungsten use?! targeting fix for 2000m +?!.... will it never end??!! errm ok how about AI artillery targeting priority? Needs to quit being so "smoke the tank" & "wait for the field gun to fire" happy and target infantry/mg nests a bit more. I'd also like to see the small chance for the AI Arty to "get it wrong" occassionally, like human players.

-john

[OGSF]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software:

OGSF will be happy to know that he pointed out a nice little bug with bazookas hitting the back doors of bunkers. No idea when this stopped working, but the fix was rather easy. It will be in 1.1.Steve<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks Steve, I do bugs for a living. I'll be sure to run a regression test after the next load is delivered. :^)

OberGrupenStompinFuhrer

[Guest Big Time Software]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>errm ok how about AI artillery targeting priority? Needs to quit being so "smoke the tank"<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hehe... there was one tweak in this regard. AI will not fire smoke in adverse weather conditions (like fog) when LOS is already not an issue. I think, but am not sure, that it has also been tweaked to use HE more often than it has been.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I'd also like to see the small chance for the AI Arty to "get it wrong" occassionally, like human players.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You should have seen the game of Kommerscheidt I played where the AI unloaded something like two 105s on what turned out to be 2 squads of mine. OK, so they were both beat up pretty badly (but still were combat effective), but the full company that was only 100m away wasn't complaining since they were not hit with artillery for the entire game

Steve

[Tris]

Peter, trenches will be included in CM2 for sure. The current plan is to make them sorta like barbed wire. Put them down where you like, rotate them, and there they stay. Foxholes will also not be automatic for the defender as they are now.

It would be entirely more utilitarian to render trench systems in the terrain editor--a kind of combination tile where the scenario designer at once lays down and depresses "roads." In this manner users could design reasonably functional trench complexes (can anyone say the Crimea?) where defenders have ability to move laterally within said trench systems while afforded cover.

Just plunk 'em down like wire or road blocks? And what? I suppose there''ll be a price attached to trenches in QB's, too. And won't that be neat: "Hey, guys, look at that that neat 20m stretch of trench!"

Your idea re foxholes is good. Here's another thought: compress time (so to speak) either between battles in an operation, or at least between dusk and/or night and/or dawn turns, to allow defenders and attackers alike to dig foxholes.

As long as this thread started out about pillboxes: I just had a greyhound take out a pillbox w/MG from 97m with its 20mm through the slit. The pillbox was set back in the woods, plus the shot went through another four tiles of scattered tree and it was an uphill bearing and and the greyhound was angling off to its right from the pillbox at normal speed.

This just isn't correct, Steve. I'm sure pillboxes took hits through their apertures, but not all pillboxes were of the giant-slit variety found at Utha Beach, certainly ones designed to house MG's were not. Throw in the kind of incredible hit ratios I've come across against these little forts, plus the extenuating circumstances I just alluded to, none of which is atypical within my limited CMBO experience, and it is hard indeed to swallow what's happening with the pillboxes ingame.

And as long as I'm on it: one major change which needs to be made is the way the engine draws a straight line of demarcation across the entire map between battles of an operation. You need to sit down and devote the time necessary to allow these lines to be drawn preciesly in accord with whatever the opposing force dispositions are at the end of each battle phase--yes, this will result in crooked lines, not straight lines . . . as it's supposed to be, I might add.

Now. Should the AI and/or human player(s) wish to set up their force(s) farther back from this line, that's something else. But the impositon of your magical line just doesn't cut it.

Look. The way it is makes it impossible to conduct an intelligent operation even on a map which was designed (gamey as can be, this) with absolute attention paid to terrain integrity with reference to a north-south axis, and don't even get me going how phoney it soon becomes on a map which is designed with something approaching creativity (i.e., one which has angled roads and start lines in corners with an objective diametrically opposed and so on).

Got it?

Good boy. Now go to bed, get lots of sleep, then wake up early tomorrow morning and call Charles and get him cracking!

P.S.

[This message has been edited by Tris (edited 11-22-2000).]

[Armdchair]

I have a question for BTS regarding pillboxes:are there any plans in the future to give them the capacity to set ambushes? This is something I would like to see because it is one of the ways pillboxes were used in reality to great advantage.

[Tris]

In the heat of the moment I'd forgotten that point. Yes, pillboxes need to be allowed to do more than "hide" (whatever that means in relation to pillboxes--it doesn't seem to keep them from shooting their MG's at armored vehicles at ludicrous ranges, thus needlessly revealing their positions) in an effort to persuade them to wait until the enemy is close enough to get a good first lick in. This not only calls for an ambush command but brings into question the TacAI as well.

[Guest Big Time Software]

Tris,

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>It would be entirely more utilitarian to render trench systems in the terrain editor--a kind of combination tile where the scenario designer at once lays down and depresses "roads." In this manner users could design reasonably functional trench complexes (can anyone say the Crimea?) where defenders have ability to move laterally within said trench systems while afforded cover.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No to the tile concept. It is inherently limiting and a bitch to implement. Making them like barbed wire does everything you just stated, but far more easily. It also allows them to be purchased in Quick Battles, which a tile system would not allow for.

Remember the scenario designer can "padlock" the trenches in place just like any other unit. So if he wants a particular entrenchment line to be enforced, that is very easy to do.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Here's another thought: compress time (so to speak) either between battles in an operation, or at least between dusk and/or night and/or dawn turns, to allow defenders and attackers alike to dig foxholes.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

We do have something like this in mind. Weather and time inbetween battles would be the big factors.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>This just isn't correct, Steve. I'm sure pillboxes took hits through their apertures, but not all pillboxes were of the giant-slit variety found at Utha Beach, certainly ones designed to house MG's were not. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

A 37mm HE round (not 20mm as you stated) from a gyrostabilized gun at a fixed target at 97m is not unbelievable at all. Especially because the MG in the bunker would be making a really nice flash signature for targeting purposes.

With an HE round it is only necessary to impact the round near the aperture, not through it. The shrapnel and cement chips would, at the very least, damage the gun if not cause crew death/injury. So do not think of the round as litterly passing through the opening when you read "Firing Slit Hit", but rather a round that detonated and effectively knocked out the pillbox in connection with the firing slit.

BTW, I read about a 57mm gun firing at a similar range in total fog and hitting the muzzle flashes of a Panther's ball mounted gun. This was pretty much the only point it could penetrate the tank, and it did, even though the gunner could only see a faint flash (not even an outline of the vehicle). Now that was lucky

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>You need to sit down and devote the time necessary to allow these lines to be drawn preciesly in accord with whatever the opposing force dispositions are at the end of each battle phase<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

First of all, we don't "need" to do anything. Perhaps we "should" do something, but that is up for debate.

We originally had a crooked line system. I can not even begin to tell you how hard we tried to make it work. It was so difficult and filled with variable special case problems (which might only come up once in a lifetime) that Charles was thinking of scrapping Operations from the game. ENTIRELY. I and a few others convinced him that it would be better to do what it took to make it work better and keep them in the game. The solution was to make the line straight.

However, I think you overestimate how "crooked" a frontline would be at this scale, after an hour or more of downtime inbetween battles. For the most part forces would consolodate their positions to form more sensible defensive/jump off lines. In other words, straightening them out. And nothing says you MUST have a straight line. You can stagger your forces if you like. You just can't have them staggered evenly with similar frontline on the other side.

So is the system 100% realistic as is? No. But from a realism/simulation/game standpoint it works, overall, far better than the previous system that allowed the frontline to be more generalized. And it also works far better than not having Operations at all

Steve

[Tris]

I considered accelerated wire/road-block plunkem's and assumed if this were implemented then these would have to be made to "bend" with the terrain (much the same as roads/walls/hedges) in order to allow trench systems of reasonably flexible design.

Pillboxes: I am aware of what's possible in life, Steve, anything is possible in life. I'm telling you that it feels to me (and others who bother to tackle this issue) that we have far too many knocked-out pillboxes early in the game, far too many overall taken out from long-range fire. It's that simple. If you don't believe me, put down your present projects, jump into this game and play it as many hours some of us do out here. Then you shall see for yourself.

You need to sit down and devote the time necessary to allow these lines to be drawn precisely in accord with whatever the opposing force dispositions are at the end of each battle phase....

First of all, we don't "need" to do anything. Perhaps we "should" do something, but that is up for debate.

It would be just like your personality to quibble with semantics at a time like this.

Moving right along: your rationalization re "problems" related to crooked lines does not hold water. No "line" would be need to be drawn, per se, just let units stay where they are when the battle stops. I have no doubt there's an issue with the TacAI pathing afterwards, but some fudge for the one-in-a-thousand cases should suffice.

One thing is crystal clear: what we have at the moment does not function well. Not at all. That is the point to take away.

More happily, I would like to wish you and everyone on the board a happy Thanksgiving. Should anyone find it necessary to drive please be careful on the road.

[This message has been edited by Tris (edited 11-22-2000).]

[Beckman]

Well I also have a 88 and 75 pill. They are kickin major butt. The 88 has taken out every vehicle in it's LOS, including 2 Jumbo's. The 75 also has kills. These guys rock, the are on each flank of a HUGE map, so my middle is weak. He has 8" arty on the 88 now, it's holding fine. I just wish it costed less and I had more of them. PS Does anyone know how effective a baz is against a Tiger frontally? I am trying to get a Tiger out of trouble, his inf is close. Thanks

[jshandorf]

Ooo! Ooooo!

Steve! How about considering towed AT guns being ranged in somewhat also in a defense situation.

Also.. What is the reasoning that troops can't dig in before a battle? I can see in some cases where that can happen. But in a the majority of defense battles the defender atleast had sometime to dig a fox hole.

Also.. will you be allowed to purchase foxholes AND trenches, since they both are different?

Thanks,

Jeff

[Olle Petersson]

About pillboxes

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Germanboy:

If a 14" was sure to kill even with a near miss, and given the amazing accuracy that naval gunners could achieve, why is it that they needed DF destroyers and tanks to knock them out on D-Day?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>WRT an earlier thread about this, I must say I think there's a mix-up involved.

What was attacked with the heaviest prep fire and had to take the most punishment was the fortresses.

The stuff depicted in CM is pillboxes, like the one present in SPR.

There were a handfull of fortresses, but several dozens of pillboxes. Obviously it was practically impossible to target each individual pillbox with naval gun fire.

The overall dimension of a pillbox is less than the wall thickness of a fortress. It's like saying: - "Tanks are armour, and so is my kevlar vest. Tanks can survive direct hits from HMGs and light artillery, therefore so should I if wearing my vest!"

Cheers

Olle

[Guest Germanboy]

Olle, Thanks for the explanation. The accounts I read refer to only single emplacements, and very few guns (not dozens) causing trouble on the beaches (not Omaha, the Commonwealth beaches), but I am not sure whether these would qualify as fortress or pillbox. I always thought the difference was that a pillbox can be part of a larger emplacement (which would then be a fortress). Are there any stats on the concrete pillboxes in CM that people have handy and how that compares to what you call fortresses?

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

Andreas

<a href="http://www.geocities.com/greg_mudry/sturm.html">Der Kessel</a >

Home of „Die Sturmgruppe“; Scenario Design Group for Combat Mission.

[This message has been edited by Germanboy (edited 11-24-2000).]

[flakattack]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by OGSF:

I am wondering about the way pillboxes are modelled in CM:BO, in particular relating to their "robustness" and the tactics needed to knock them out.

Whenever I have used them, or attacked them, they seem to succumb very easily to long range direct fire from AFVs'. Tanks seem to have little trouble putting shells through the firing slit, usually in three or less shots.

Perhaps the advantage of using pillboxes lies in defence against infantry and / or artillery. However, this seems moot as tanks invariably are available to take on the pillbox. Which leads me to consider tactics as used in the ETO in 1944/45 vs what works in CM:BO.

According to Doubler in "Closing with the Enemy", when assaulting pillboxes artillery fire and mortars would force the crews of pillboxes to close the embasures. After the barrage moved on, TDs' would put direct fire on pillboxes to prevent the crews from manning their heavy weapons. Specially trained assault infantry would then move in under the covering fire and use bazookas, satchel charges and flame throwers to break in the back door of the pill box. At this point the crew usually surrendered. Doubler says that the average time to reduce a pillbox was 30 minutes, using these tactics. This does not really compare to the one or two minutes pillboxes have survived in my games (whether I attack them or use them).

I have flanked pillboxes in games and had a bazooka team target the rear of the pillbox. All the bazooka team did was expnd their ammunition against the reinforced concrete casing, instead of blasting in the back door.

So my conclusion would be that pillboxes in CM do not extend the life of the gun inside by very much as they are very susceptible to direct fire from armour, but are impervious to infantry assault.

I was wondering what other's experiences are, whether pillboxes in CM need to be "tweaked" in future versions of the game, if the AIs' ability to reduce pillboxes needs to be improved, or if they are just fine the way they are.

My own take is that direct fire from tanks and TDs' ought to suppress the crew inside, but a kill through the firing slit should be quite rare. I also would like to see bazooka and engineer troops have the "AI sense" to blow in the back door of pillboxes, effectively causing the crew to surrender.

OberGrupenStompinFeuhrer

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Just got CM,and love the game.Though one thing that disturbs me is how easy it is,for a tank to put a shell through the firing slit at a very long distance,in two tries.I don't think there was laser sighting on those tanks back then....

[caralampio]

I have destroyed concrete pillboxes with artillery. Usually the big stuff but sometimes down to 105mm. It is rare though, sometimes you can spend all your ammo on one for no effect.

One interesting thing I have noticed is that pillboxes can be hulldown as if they were vehicles, and they are nearly impossible to destroy with direct fire when so.

Caralampio

[Otrex]

I do recall reading a book that mentioned engagement of Concrete Pillboxes. This one fellow in particular had managed to get his Priest (or some other heavy calibre gun) up to a hill overlooking a collection of PB's. He spent the afternoon bouncing HE shells off the tops of the PB's and when he was questioned about what he was doing he said "Doesnt matter. When you go down there later, you are gonna find the crews inside lying around dazed and you can take them easily." Turns out he was right, and troops just walked right in the back door and captured crews by the hundreds. Anyways, thats just what I read.

Just as a side note, I like to put my PB's in ambush positions (i.e. around a sharp turn in a road, behind a line of dense forest), so that when a target emerges, it is unbuttoned (usually) and traveling at a high rate of speed (sometimes with the turret facing the wrong way). Usually, though I stick a support team nearby to hold the flanks from infantry assaults. Just put them on "hide" until enemy troops are sent over to deal with the problem.

[Guest wwb_99]

I was once doing a report on the Battle of the Bulge and looking at contemporary (Dec. 1944) issues of the New York Times. And everyday on the frontpage they had a 'pillbox count,' kinda like the bodycounts from Vietnam.

WWB

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

Before battle, my digital soldiers turn to me and say,

Ave, Caesar! Morituri te salatimus.

[Guest Big Time Software]

Otrex,

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>He spent the afternoon bouncing HE shells off the tops of the PB's and when he was questioned about what he was doing he said "Doesnt matter. When you go down there later, you are gonna find the crews inside lying around dazed and you can take them easily." Turns out he was right, and troops just walked right in the back door and captured crews by the hundreds. Anyways, thats just what I read.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Boy, that story sounds very familiar. This is something that we are going to model better in CM2. Pillboxes were designed to protect the equipment and men inside from "damage". However, they were not immune to all forms of punishment. And if the grunts don't follow up the bombardment, the crews will most likely regain their composure and start causing trouble again.

But the bottom line is that pillboxes were much more vulnerable to direct fire HE than people think. The most successfull emplacements were not the ones that were sitting out in the open. Rather, the ones that were more hidden the better.

One pillbox line in the Huertgen battle was assaulted more times than I can remember. Each time the assault left the Americans bloodied and no closer to victory. And these were, from what I can tell, wooden MG bunkers like CM has. The reason why it was such a problem was because the forest was too thick to move up heavy weapons into firing positions. Artillery was also difficult to direct, and the standing trees probably took most of the brunt of bombardment. I'm not sure when the Americans finally took that line, but I think it was only after the Germans were worn down through attrition rather than any great spectacular breakthrough.

Steve

[Guest wwb_99]

It was definitely attrition, given the Americans were taking roughly 80-160 pillboxes a day along the westwall (at least in Dec. 44 according to the NYT).

WWB

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

Before battle, my digital soldiers turn to me and say,

Ave, Caesar! Morituri te salatimus.

[BeWary]

Here's a suggestion for CM2:

My Dad was in the Army and spent time in Germany. He told me he saw a pillbox located in a forest, with a tree and grass growing on top of it. He said it was very difficult to see from the ground until you got up close, and it could definitely not be seen from the air.

I don't know how common this was, or if it was even used during WW2, but if it was, I think it'd be cool to implement it somehow in CM2.

BeWary

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

"Liberty or Death?" Make it "Victory or Pretty Damned Badly Wounded", and I'm yours. - a prospective recruit during the American Revolution.