Fionn Posted May 18, 2000 Share Posted May 18, 2000 Archangel, Well, in one game against Matt his arty wiped out 1/3rd of my force before they'd even fired a shot. Most-times however my men are virtually unhurt by arty so long as they are in good cover... VoT's artillery is just devastating. I underestimated how effective arty would be against totally static positions and paid for it.. Usually my positions aren't static and so I would count myself unlucky to lose 15 men out of a company of 100 to arty in an entire game but in VoT i've lost close to half my force to arty simply because the Americans have SO MUCH! IMO VoT is really a showcase for 3 things: 1. American "en masse" tank usage. 2. American artillery. 3. The Panther. It really just showcases those three things IMO. The infantry kind of die easily . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lee Posted May 18, 2000 Share Posted May 18, 2000 Michael: I had considered the problem with treebursts but in the example I was referring to the infantry had been caught in the open and running to the trees would get them out of the densest part of the pattern. And so, on the whole, would be a better risk than sitting right in the middle of a bombardment admiring the clouds. Of course, a good solid house would be preferable to both. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Stone Posted May 18, 2000 Author Share Posted May 18, 2000 Hey T_P Bomber, My solution to the 150mm getting blasted was placement & command. I moved it to the left flank a couple times. Still covering Hill 198 and most of the sunken road, but getting it out of the Shermans and US Spotter's LOS. The German gun isn't gonna win a duel with the tanks, so I 'save' it for the US infantry. Also, there is a good little knob on the left -front of Hill 209(?) which I have placed the German Company Commander on before. He pulls the 150mm Gun under command and it is much less apt to fire while hiding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jager 7 Posted May 18, 2000 Share Posted May 18, 2000 Great thread guys. I have to toss in my thoughts. I also have real world experience with arty (daily) and find that CM models it overall very well and exceptionally well compared to games that have come before. (I love seeing FO's in a game..very well done!) Face it, troops (and guns) in the open or in holes with little or no overhead cover that get hit with an accurate Fire For Effect are going to get hurt - period. I do however think that CM's arty is too destructive vs. bunkers and pillboxes. These targets in real life are among the absolute hardest to hit and to damage with arty. They are designed to withstand much more than a little 81mm mortar and his bigger brother the '05. Direct hits on concrete structures of this nature don't do much. That's why god made engineers with satchel charges and flamethrowers. Again let me say that I find the game overall to be a gem and I can't wait to get the finished version!!! ------------------ When the situation is obscure....attack! CGen. Heinz Guderian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bullethead Posted May 18, 2000 Share Posted May 18, 2000 Lee said: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I was referring to the infantry had been caught in the open and running to the trees would get them out of the densest part of the pattern. And so, on the whole, would be a better risk than sitting right in the middle of a bombardment admiring the clouds.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Well, the problem I have with this is that you're talking about a rational decision here. I was talking about irrational decisions , which I think could be improved with more consideration of the circumstances. Although I can cite some counterexamples, most people with some training or experience in dealing with a threat retain enough basic knowledge to avoid the most stupid course of action even when panicked. Such knowledge seems to function like instinct. I guess this is because panic is an evolved emergency self-preservation reaction. Anyway, it seems to me that CM handles morale the same way in all cases, in a way similar to most other tactical wargames. Namely, if enough BAD THINGS happen, the unit will run away. In some circumstances, however, this is the worst course of action. When that happens, it grates a bit on my realism senses . Getting up in the middle of shelling is one such example. So is running out of a foxhole or building simply due to intense smallarms fire when there is no covered line of retreat. OTOH, abandoning the same cover due to direct tank maingun fire makes sense--the cover is not providing protection. I guess I'd like to see the decision of whether or not to run to take more factors into consideration. Things not directly tied to the unit itself, such as the availability of a covered line of retreat or the continuing nature of the shelling. Maybe CM already does this. If so, however, IMHO these considerations need to be given more weight. ------------------ -Bullethead jtweller@delphi.com WW2 AFV Photos: people.delphi.com/jtweller/tanks/tanks.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted May 18, 2000 Share Posted May 18, 2000 Months ago we pondered the notion of having panicked units respond differently depending on the kind of attack they're under. The trouble was that it actually gets quite complicated. There are lots of variables - current terrain, nearby terrain, proximity of enemy units and what they "block", combinations of weapons attacking you (what if a mixture of artillery and something else?), etc. So we were concerned that trying to add special logic might actually make units do dumb things more often - i.e. that the cure would be worse than the disease. In short, this is something we're still looking at. We just haven't come up with any nobel-prize-winning ideas yet; but as with everything we strive to continually improve. Charles Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ARCHANGEL Posted May 18, 2000 Share Posted May 18, 2000 Hey TP-Bomber, Regarding the 150mm...I have been putting it in the trees at the extreme left flank of the German lines and giving it the HIDE command...usually it actually DOES hide...I don't use it until the assaulting forces are 1) at the left gully where the small flag is located, 2) moving on the village on the right side of the road (little hill top)or 3) tanks are exposed...I have had it survive every time that I employed it this way...I don't fire until it is absolutely necessary... No doubt there are many other options, this is one I use since the first time I lost the 150mm... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lee Posted May 18, 2000 Share Posted May 18, 2000 I see your point, Charles. This sort of thing can get very complicated very quickly and there is the real risk in such a tangled web of factors that the troops will end up doing some really stupid stuff more often than is worth the trouble of trying to model it in the first place. It's funny just how complex these problems are when you start to really think about them. From an AI programmer's point of view it must be a real nightmare at times. It just goes to show that what the human mind can grasp and quickly process and arrive at a decision on is VERY hard to train a computer to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Michael emrys Posted May 19, 2000 Share Posted May 19, 2000 Lee wrote: "I had considered the problem with treebursts but in the example I was referring to the infantry had been caught in the open and running to the trees would get them out of the densest part of the pattern. And so, on the whole, would be a better risk than sitting right in the middle of a bombardment admiring the clouds." Understood. But I think I have to go with Bullethead on this one. From all I've read on this subject (no first-hand experience, thank god), men caught in the middle of a barrage got as close to the center of the planet as they could manage and stayed there. "Of course, a good solid house would be preferable to both." Any sort of overhead cover is a Good Thing in a bombardment, and the more the better. If you can't find a bunker, the ground floor of a multi-story building will do (as long as it doesn't collapse or catch fire (ulp!). Lacking those alternatives, a foxhole, ditch, wall, or any depression will at least protect you from fragments except in the case of a direct hit (in which case all your worldly worries are over anyway). Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bullethead Posted May 19, 2000 Share Posted May 19, 2000 THE Charles said: Months ago we pondered the notion of having panicked units respond differently depending on the kind of attack they're under. The trouble was that it actually gets quite complicated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bullethead Posted May 19, 2000 Share Posted May 19, 2000 Michael Emrys said: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>From all I've read on this subject (no first-hand experience, thank god), men caught in the middle of a barrage got as close to the center of the planet as they could manage and stayed there.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> This can be considered a form of running way: straight down instead of horizontally ------------------ -Bullethead jtweller@delphi.com WW2 AFV Photos: people.delphi.com/jtweller/tanks/tanks.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lee Posted May 20, 2000 Share Posted May 20, 2000 Michael: I agree that they would tend to stay put. I was just suggesting that if they were panicked and happened to be very close to some good thick woods or a house that they might be willing to make a mad dash for them. But this would only be if it was very close. Other than that, they probably would just stay put. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts