Real World Defensive Plans vs. Defense in CM

[John Kettler]

It seems to me that the defender in CM labors under some major limitations which his real world counterpart did not.

In CM, there is no real equivalent to final protective fires from machine guns. Yes, I can easily plot LOS and identify blind spots in my defensive coverage, but there is no way I know of to put down effective defensive fire while the foe is in smoke or enshrouded in darkness to deny him a road or axis of approach. Nor can I set up interlocking defensive fires between or among squads using their organic BARs, Brens or MG-42s, let alone rifles and SMGs.

Yes, I understand the CPU hit problem there, but I don't understand why I can't put fire on a known, presurveyed axis in CM using an MG team when it was done all the time in the real world, using simple pegs, range cards, etc.

Because of this problem, smoke is far more effective in CM than it was in the real world. In CM, it essentially guts the defense by blocking LOS, thus preventing fire altogether.

In reality, if I've got an MG covering a stretch of road and have sited it properly, I can make anyone's life very doubtful who tries to cross it, even in smoke or fog.

Similarly, in a prepared defense I ought to have not one TRP (as in a certain demo scenario) but a bunch, corresponding to preregistered defensive concentrations of mortar and artillery fire (especially in dead ground). I ought to be able to bring down that fire by simply firing an appropriate flare cluster, too, with no radio or field phone needed, regardless of smoke, fog, etc.

In CM, I have far less flexibility in my overall fire plan. I can't even fire blind into smoke with mortars, even under direct observation by the firing mortar. And let's not forget that smoke in CM generally is either on or off. If it's on, kiss LOS goodbye. There are no conditions in CM I know of which preclude smoke's use--no wind, no stray eddies, no breezes, temperature inversions, storms, etc.

Again, a huge CPU hit to model, if it could be modeled. But again, this makes smoke vastly more potent in CM than it really was in real life. American artillery preponderance in one of the demo scenarios is such that whole vales and large hills can be hidden from sight, largely negating the defense. The attacker can advance with far more confidence in CM than he could in real life. He can count on his smoke.

While I'm at it, I think that minefields could use a few adjustments. The mere detonation of a mine by a man or vehicle obviously indicates there was a mine there, but that is a far cry from knowing whether it was an isolated mine for harassment, a hasty field, or a full-blown camouflaged, possibly boobytrapped, minefield, let alone its full extent. If possible, it would be nice to be able to differentiate between, say, the dreaded Bouncing Betty, which could seriously damage a squad, or a Schu mine which attacks a single man in the squad.

In any event, I adamantly feel that minefields should not be a mere a one-detonation-here's-where-I (the minefield)-am experience. I want to see more like Kaboom! (screams, etc.)Now what do I (the CO) do?

None of the above should be construed as an attack on what by definition is a stunning, revolutionary wargame, for which everyone who worked on it deserves our profound respect and admiration. Rather, I seek to highlight areas where I feel additional explanation and discussion is needed from BTS and the troops and to identify areas which I believe would improve an already amazing wargaming experience.

Very truly,

John Kettler

[Sgt.Morgue]

John,

i believe if you use area fire , you can fire into the smoke.

[Doug Beman]

If there's a smoke screen, you can use area fire to target the ground immediately in front of the smoke, but the main portion of the bullets fired by the machine gun will impact in the area of your target marker, and will not continue into the smoke, or through it. If enemy troops come charging out of that smoke, then they'll run into the machine gun fire. Otherwise, you're shooting empty ground.

DjB

[Bullethead]

John raises an issue that's been bothering me as well. Simply put, it's the total inability to area fire into places where you don't have an LOS. I agree that this imposes an unrealistic burden on the defender.

I would like to see this changed. I would like to be able to draw lines of MG fire criss-crossing through the smokescreens. I would like to put mortars into the smoke as well. I would like to be able to spray across ground beyond night viz range when I know the enemy is out there somewhere.

Would this be abused? Not particularly, IMHO. Squads and mortars never have enough ammo. And while MGs might, this is one of their intended functions in smoke and at night there's the tradeoff with giving away your position.

More work for the AI, however.

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

-Bullethead

It was a common custom at that time, in the more romantic females, to see their soldier husbands and sweethearts as Greek heroes, instead of the whoremongering, drunken clowns most of them were. However, the Greek heroes were probably no better, so it was not so far off the mark--Flashman

[Guest Michael emrys]

It is also possible to place ambush markers. HQs, teams (machine guns, mortars, anti-tank teams) guns, and tanks (and other AFVs?) are all able to place ambush markers. This is not a complete solution to the problem you present, John, especially in regards to smoke or other limitations on visibility. But it might provide a starting point for a little creative hacking.

E.g., could a little bit of code be written that would allow ambush markers to be placed during the set-up phase in somewhat the same manner that TRPs are except following the normal rules that govern the placement of ambushes, such as they need to be within the line of sight of the placing unit. But you could extend their effectiveness by making sound contacts trigger them. Fire triggered by an invisible contact would only be subject to Area Fire.

Michael

[Guest *Captain Foobar*]

I think that allowing you to fire into the smoke, even a greatly reduced accuracy could help with another quibble, that being the tank retargeting problem. When that pesky sherman drops smoke, just keep pumping rounds into the smoke where he is. At best you might score a hit. At worst, you will be ready to fight when the smoke clears, instead of turning your turret 180 degrees to shoot at squad remnants, due to the lack of any forward targets...

Isnt it amazing, the ease with which we conjure up these changes? Now all BTS has to do is type it into the keyboard, and Blammo!! all better right?

[JeffRaider]

I strongly agree with everything John has said. I'd like to see some varied smoke, such as thick smoke, light smoke and mixed smoke. That would make smoke unpredictable, and a less effective tool for the attacker.

Also, I'd really like to have the ability to fire through smoke. Perhaps not at close range, I mean the smoke at close range, e.g. right in front of the firing platform, unless it was a prepared defense, e.g. VoT. Anything further than say 50m should be able to be shot through easily, especially if the firing platform was shooting at that target before the smoke popped.

[Guest Germanboy]

Not having any idea about the coding or CPU problems involved, I would agree with John on the smoke issue as well. If an attacker puts down smoke somewhere, I would expect someone or something to hid behind it, so putting fire into it is not gamey, IMO.

BTW, this is one of the areas where I would like to see BTS expend their limited time (once they are back from Hawaii), instead of working on e.g. the Maus.

As for minefields, I think that at the moment the attacker has no real way of detecting or destroying mines (sappers with detectors, flail tanks), so I think for the time being they should not be more powerful. That would skew the game against the attacker, IMO.

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

Andreas

[Moon]

One argument AGAINST being able to fire through smoke (both with MGs and mortars):

as it is, the player with his overview of the situation is capable to target such fire with much more accuracy than the real word counterpart(s) would be able to. The player might, for example, use the intel of one of his units whose LOS is not obscured by the smoke to place harrassing fire from the MG which cannot see the target very accurately on the enemy.

Maybe in the end it is more realistic in the end as it is?

[Guest Germanboy]

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

One argument AGAINST being able to fire through smoke (both with MGs and mortars):<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think that it is a good point, and I believe that is the reasoning behind needing a HQ unit with LOS to spot for mortars. I wonder if there is no possible workaround for that, but that might be more trouble than it is worth. (e.g. special dispersion, wide area fire, reducing fire-power or something along those lines) Again, I have no clue about coding, so feel free to ignore my suggestions.

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

Andreas

[Guest *Captain Foobar*]

Moon,

I didnt think of that. Fo rthat reason perhaps decreasing the accuracy of this fire would help. My main interest is in solving the villers-bocage syndrome, where wittman reverses his turret to shoot at broken crews, because some stuart dropped smoke for 30 secs in front of him. Being able to area fire into that smoke would possibly keep this from happening.

Does anyone agree/disagree with me on this?

[Dienekes]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by *Captain Foobar*:

Moon,

My main interest is in solving the villers-bocage syndrome, where wittman reverses his turret to shoot at broken crews, because some stuart dropped smoke for 30 secs in front of him. Being able to area fire into that smoke would possibly keep this from happening.

Does anyone agree/disagree with me on this?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

When Whittman does that bonehead move I area fire in the direction of the tank with the main gun. It wastes ammo but keeps me from getting wasted. I usually try to knock down a building while I'm waiting.

[chrisl]

I'm one more in favor of area fire into smoke, even though it will hurt me as much as help-- dropping a bunch of smoke and then running through it for an assault is great, but the defender should at least be able to suppress the charging troops with area fire (grazing if possible).

[PvK]

I'd say that units should be able to fire into and slightly through smoke (but not fire behind, because they can't see where the ground is so they're more likely to over or under-shoot.

However, the firepower should be significantly reduced, perhaps as a function of how far behind the smoke the intended beaten zone is.

I like the idea of allowing defenders to specify target areas that their units can hit without LOS if they haven't moved, representing pre-aimed fire into areas that may be smoked. It'd still be at a fairly high penalty compared to being able to see the target, I'd say.

One addition for mines could be the ability to place single mines. When not on roads, they'd almost never be hit, but hitting one would result in the enemy seeing a dummy minefield marker. They hit one mine, and assume the area is a minefield, although it won't actually hurt anything else that tries to move there. However, units would be reluctant to go near since a mine had gone off there.

PvK

[Big Poppa Pump]

Like the idea of firing into smoke. IMO this is a realistic (not gamey). Just wanted to show my support for this idea.

[Guest Michael emrys]

"I like the idea of allowing defenders to specify target areas that their units can hit without LOS if they haven't moved, representing pre-aimed fire into areas that may be smoked. It'd still be at a fairly high penalty compared to being able to see the target, I'd say."

This sounds fair to me. I would think the penalty for blind firing should be fairly high though, something on the order of -90% effectiveness (it's not easy to hit a man-sized target, even with a machine gun, if you're not aiming at him). Obviously not the kind of thing one would do unless one had plenty of ammo on hand, which would presumably be the case with a fixed defense.

Michael

[Schrullenhaft]

I also support the idea of firing into smoke with reduced effectiveness, especially for prepared defenses. With AFVs smoke screens are a big problem since smoke makes the TacAI disregard the threat from behind the screen and retarget to an often-times lower priority threat. That's why I'd think it would be nice to have a user-targetable override on the TacAI, especially for the main weapon (secondary weapons could fire at other threats, if within the firing arc).

I guess what it comes down to is how effective should fire through a smoke screen be ? Just an Area Fire routine that penetrates the smoke screen would be good enough for the moment.

As for minefields I would like 2-3 sizes/densities for them. The defender would be given a total allotment that can be sorted out to the 3 densities. That way you could spread out your fields and density for the effect you want to create.

[Guest Germanboy]

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

Just an Area Fire routine that penetrates the smoke screen would be good enough for the moment.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

In light of the point Moon was making, I think that would be too effective, b/c you could still target the exact area that a unit occupies if that unit is spotted by another of your units - relative spotting. Therefore there would need to be a routine to e.g. reduce the firepower of fire going through smoke, maybe by treating it like soft cover or something. Again - no idea about the coding involved.

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

Andreas

[Moon]

In the Bundeswehr, we've actually had a training session about firing through smoke. We put some smoke cannisters onto the shooting range and let go. Amazing results...

I am not talking about hitting or not hitting the targets - most shots didn't even come that close. Out of a clip of ten, one of mine actually hit the BACK PANEL of the shooting range. The rest was never found

Shooting through smoke - in my opinion of course - and should it ever actually make it into the game, should only be allowed for defending units which have not moved since setup (similar to mortars). The reason is that pretty much the only way I know to shoot through smoke more or less accurately is by the use of "aiming sticks" (if you want to know more about this, head over to http://www.gamesofwar.de . In the tactics section, click on RECON. There is a nice article there under "defense" I think.)

These can be used by night, too, by the way. Which brings up the point: if allowing to fire through smoke, the game should also allow to fire beyond visibility range during night scenarios to stay consistent.

Hmm... sounds mighty confusing for little gain to be honest...

[Guest Germanboy]

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

In the Bundeswehr, we've actually had a training session about firing through smoke. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Damn - we never got to do this, we in the air force were to bust looking good in our shiny uniforms... Well, I guess there must be some fun for the Grennies... The more I think about it, the more I tend to agree with your arguments.

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

Andreas

[Guest *Captain Foobar*]

Personally, I dont even care if my hit chance is only 1% ! I just want the option of keeping my tank's attention focused on that smoke veiled threat. An area target fire directly in front of the smoke is commonly overridden my the ai, to shoot at broken crews.

I just don't like being at a disadvantage when the smoke clears.

[Guest Michael emrys]

I think Moon knows exactly what he's talking about. Firing into smoke, fog, darkness, etc. should only be permitted to units that have not moved from the start of the scenario and the fire can only be directed at TRP or Ambush markers set at the beginning of the scenario. It should be at *greatly* reduced effectiveness, but as compensation I would like to see the concept of "grazing fire" introduced in addition to the present "beaten ground". That is, in addition to designating an area in which a unit can be hit by fire if the unit wanders into, the firer could (if terrain permits) establish a corridor of a hundred meters or so which if crossed anywhere along its length has a chance of hitting the crossing unit.

It seems to me that the best way to address the problem that *Captain Foobar*, Schrullenhaft, and others have complained about is just to tweak the AI to make the target designations a little bit stickier, at least in the case where there is an as yet unkilled major threat still in the vicinity. It seems that right now, the AI "forgets" about such a threat too easily.

Michael

[OberGrupenStompinFeuhrer!]

Some good points raised and I initially shared John's frustration.

However, the more I thought about it the less clear it became (hazey?). Consider a river crossing. Before setting out in the rubber boats, the attacker lays a smoke screen on the far bank. Now will the defenders fire blindly into the smoke, hoping to hit something? A lot of ammo expended for little or no return. I wonder what really happened. Panicky bursts of automatic weapons, the Unteroffizier barking at his troops to hold their fire? However, often the smoke was not very effective - blown away or targeted incorrectly.

Perhaps it would be easier and more effective from BTSs' code point of view, to introduce a random smoke variable to simulate wind effect. So the smoke may last the full minute or whatever it does now - but it may also only last for as little as 15 seconds, or 40 seconds or whatever. Point being that the Sherman that pops smoke may not have a chance to get completely out of LOS before it's smoke "disperses". Or it might.

Would that help?

Ober

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

"Them Yankees couldn't hit the broa..."

[John Kettler]

I'm glad that my post has engendered so many carefully crafted replies.

OBGSF, I think you may well be on to something with your idea. Since wind isn't now depicted and may never be modeled in CM, it seems quite clear to me that something needs to be done to take smoke out of its present astronomic level of effectiveness and return it to something far closer to battlefield realities. Variable coverage would be nice, if the CPU can hack it.

I suggest we ping Fionn on what wind velocity it takes to negate smoke and seriously consider either assigning or defining smoke unfavorable conditions in future scenarios, preferably by a percentage chance based on historical weather patterns. I also believe Fionn's the guy to answer your how to defend against a smokescreened river crossing.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Sten]

Although I tend to agree with most of what's being said here, keep in mind that the ultra-efficient smoke does not help the AI to a greater degree than the player. When the smoke blocks LOS in a tank duel and your tank turns his turret the other way, so does the AI's tank.

*Captain Foobar* said:

"I just don't like being at a disadvantage when the smoke clears."

The smoke gives the attacker a bonus, not the AI.

Sten