Real World Defensive Plans vs. Defense in CM

[IntelWeenie]

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

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"...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ditto to Moon! It could be modeled in the game using something similar to a TRP (which can be targeted when not in LOS). As for reduced effectiveness, isn't that already handled by the way the game tracks fire until it hits something Buildings, trees, the ground, people)?

[Guest *Captain Foobar*]

Yes, both tanks will retarget, IF there is something to aim at. Imagine a situation where you are attacking / assaulting with armor. You have knocked out your first tank, and are advancing to his position. As you reach the ruined afv, you spot another enemy tank further back in their defensive line. If you have a "better" tank, the tac ai of your enemy will often drop smoke.

At this point the attacker is at a disadvantage, because he has multiple targets to choose from. The defender, who has been stationary, and dropped smoke 20m in front of his own face, will sit with his gun pointed exactly where it was, as there will be nothing in view for him to shoot at.

When the smoke slears some 30 seconds later, I will probably have my turret facing 90 degrees away from the threat, to shoot at the crew from that lead tank I destroyed.

I hope this helps you to understand where I am coming from.

Although this might sound a little convoluted, the way I am explaining it, it can happen pretty often under the right circumstances. Anyone who still doesnt get it should try Villers-Bocage as Germans.

Michael: to maintain focus on the smoke veiled afv, you would have to maintain targeting on an unseen enemy for longer than 30 seconds. This would have major implications on the rest of the game. I am not a software designer, but here is what I think would do it. Any one of these *might* help. They are listed in descending order of preference.

1) If the tac ai decides to drop smoke, it MUST be accompanied by a "reverse the hell out of there" series of waypoints by the enemy's tac ai, that will make the enemy be gone when the smoke clears. This has been suggestested earlier, and it seems like a logical extension of the intent of dropping smoke. I list this first, because it seems the most valid, and perhaps the least amount of work.

2) If I am aimed at an enemy afv, and he drops smoke, I am still aimed at him, i just cant see him. I could still pull the trigger, and the my ap would penetrate that smoke AND the tank. Those specific aiming calculations could still be made available between me and my enemy, without los, as long as neither of us move.

3 Make area fire an unchangeable priority level, and give me the ability to throw it blindly into the smoke/void. I list this last, because it seems to be the least preferable, and th emost amount of work.

[Oldgamer]

A quick couple cents worth – the original point is very well made. Firing through smoke and beyond night visibility range, particularly with stabilized MGs, was a common tactic under certain situations. One of the most important concepts of defense is to funnel an attack into an area of your choosing (kill zones), and one of the best ways to do this was to take advantage of open fire lanes. Granted, in a meeting engagement scenario this degree of preparation would not exist, but in most other defensive situations it would. Again, controlling the approach is the key here, and pre-sighting MGs was a very common tactic. Not “gamey” in the least, in my opinion.

The ammunition situation is also not as dire as you might think, as the point was to fire the occasional burst to discourage crossing a fire lane, and of course hvy MGs were given extensive ammo (situation permitting) partly for this purpose. It only takes a few bursts to make an infantryman think twice about running across that lane.

As to the lack of wind modeling, I hadn’t even noticed this yet. Quite strange to anyone with actual smoke experience (yes, another prior grunt), as it’s well known that all types of smoke suffer during any wind, wet, snow, etc… I’m playing a scenario with rain now; have to try some smoke just to see (when I get away from this darn job thing, that is).

[Bullethead]

I suggest a compromise on the "only for unmoved units" thing. Basically, I would like the ability for all units to shoot blind if so ordered, but give unmoved units higher effectiveness, and even differentiate between certain types of units.

IMHO, the best things for shooting blind would be unmoved MMG, HMGs, and mortars, due to the T&Es of tripod MGs and the similar things on mortars. Basically, the procedure when setting up the defense is like registering arty on a TRP--shoot a few rounds direct fire until you hit the desired point, then record the T&E or sight settings for future reference when you can't see that point. This isn't going to be as accurate as aimed fire, of course, but it will be a lot better than shooting blind without such references.

The above seems to indicate something similar to a TRP or ambush marker. It would only be available in the set-up phase. It would be placed by each individual weapon and useable only by the weapon placing it. So if you wanted, for example, 2 MGs to pre-target the same point, each would have to use one of its own marker there. Each such weapon would have a default max number of such markers, which could be altered by the scenario designer to simulate more or less time to prepare defenses. And these markers could only be used if the weapon did not move.

On a similar note, I think squads should have a PDF marker of their own. These should be available for placement at any time during the game when a) the unit is in command, and is not moving. If a squad with a PDF marker moves, the PDF marker is removed but a new one can be set up once the above conditions are met again.

The differences between a PDF marker and an ambush marker, besides the PDF being set by the squad instead of an HQ, is that the PDF remains in place even when not targeted and can be placed and fired on while out of LOS. Fire at a PDF marker would be less effective than both aimed fire and the T&E markers for MGs/mortars, but moreso than blind area fire.

Finally, any unit should be able to area fire blind, regardless of special markers or command status. This would have the lowest effectiveness and mostly be a waste of ammo, but you might get lucky

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

-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

[Pfalz XII]

Here's my suggestion re AFV targeting which would hopefully end the problem of "shooting at non-threatening crews and getting toasted by that tank sitting right in front of your face" problem: A seperate targetting command for AFV's/AT units called, "Target AFV/ATG Only." This command would apply only to the main gun of an armored unit or to AT guns, forcing them to ignore crews and infantry units with their main gun, allowing the player to concentrate on any armored threats or AT guns that are out there but which are temporarily out of LOS.

While this will not eliminate the problem of rotating the turrent more than 90 degrees away from an armored threat that has popped smoke, it will limit the number of targets of opportunity (to enemy armor and AT guns) so that your armored unit has a better chance of engaging the enemy AFV when it comes back into LOS. It also seems to be more in line with the main purpose of armor units--to engage and destroy other armored units. Of course, this command would be selectable by the player, to be used in those situations when you are stalking (or are being stalked) by enemy armor and aren't as interested in killing troops. When not selected, your unit would behave normally, targeting any target of opportunity.

While BTS's solution of increasing target stickiness has helped, I don't think it addresses the main problem: armored units get easily overwhelmed by having too many juicy targets to choose from. This problem becomes much more apparent in the mid to late stages of scenarios involving lots of armor, e.g. Villars-Bocage, where after a few turns, there are lots of 4 or 5 man crews running around. Furthermore, these crews are often out in the open, where they are easily spotted.

Finally, when an enemy unit goes out of LOS for more than a few seconds, its threat value is reduced to almost zero (out of sight, out of mind). In this situation, the tactical AI gets too easily distracted by the units it can see. With my idea, even though your tank can see the crew, it ignores it so it can concentrate on the more important armored unit or ATG's.

What about schrecks and bazooka teams, you say? With your command, my tank will get toasted by them. Well, my argument is that a good player will not let his armored units get close enough to these teams in the first place. And, if you are really worried about these small AT teams, don't use the target AFV's/ATG only command.

I like my idea because it gives you some control, but not too much control. In essence, you are emphasizing to your TC that his main job is to engage enemy armor, when the situation calls for it. Sure, there will be times when your AFV will not find any enemy armor to shoot at and will sit there for a turn not shooting anything with its main gun. However, it will still be able to use its machine guns. And, if that enemy armored unit appears, you will have a better chance of taking it out because you are not being distracted by that pesky, but low threat, bailed out crew.

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

Formerly known as not THE Charles from BTS

[This message has been edited by Pfalz XII (edited 07-03-2000).]

[ianc]

I've had the 'dead Wittman' syndrome many times as well. Popped right through the turret rear.

I like Pfalz XIII's idea of a 'Target AFV\AT Only' command selection. Perhaps Charles or Steve will chip in.

ianc

[Guest *Captain Foobar*]

I like it too, but it sounds like a sizable amount of work. In addition though, the concept of tanks dropping smoke, and then staying put should be addressed, or at least discussed. The dead wittman syndrome would be a moot point if that enemy afv was gone when the smoke cleared..

(waiting for bts to chime in......)

[:USERNAME:]

I also like the 'filter' idea. Makes me wonder how this problem never came up during testing.

I think the tank/atg 'setting' should be triggered by the game. When a AFV 'sees' a threat tank/gun, it will automatically go into this mode. Certain support vehicles like stugs could be more resistant to this perhaps. I like the ideaa of setting this pregame also to give certain TD weapons an overall mission priority.

One way or another its something that I would like to see fixed ASAP. I am doing all kinds of gamey shuffling of armor so as to minimize the chance that they spy a one man crew remainder and make him job one. In villars I had 4 german tanks ALL targeting the same 2 man crew from a carrier. Unbelievable.

Lewis

[snagdad]

I see three things here that seem to make intuitive and perhaps historical sense, and seem, to my ignorant mind, relatively non hard to program.

First, the smoke as currently modeled is perfect? it immediately denies all LOS and continues to do so for some period of time despite any and all weather conditions. Perhaps its effect on LOS should be a variable. LOS at first glance (multiple puns ahead) seems to be like pregnancy, you either are or you aren't, but actually physical point to point LOS can be modified by several factors (fog, night, etc.) Why not smoke as a variable value also, affected by wind, rain, etc.

Second, it does seem logical that if an attacking tank gets scared enough to pop smoke it should back away at a high rate of speed to somewhere where the crew can clean up the mess on the floor.

Finally, and come on, really, no TC is going to swivel his main gun away from known armored targets to blast barely armed tank crews. Maybe the fix is no turret rotation away from last threat until a new motorized threat is realized. and I do say motorized as opposed to armored because halftracks and trucks and so on are tempting targets to TCs. a problem of course is infantry tank weapons; if I'm a TC and I somehow see some guy pointing a bazooka at me I'm gonna rotate to try and get him before he gets me. but the game already has reconition rules for infantry where at some point bazookas and schrecks are recognized (which could lift the no turret turn). We finally get to basic infantry with their mills bombs and fausts, but...c'est la guerre !

[Pfalz XII]

Thanks for the compliments. I have thought about this for awhile, and I really hope that Steve or Charles weigh in on this issue when they get back from their well-deserved vacations--get back to work guys!!

To re-emphasize, I don't think the main problem is one of target "stickiness." Instead, it's that AFV's have too many targets to choose from. In contrast to other units which have more limited roles, and because of their unique combination of protection, mobility, and firepower, AFV's are asked to do a lot of things. Usually, this is a good thing. However, there are also times when you only want them to do just one thing--kill that Tiger, Sherman, etc. The target "filter" simply increases the chances that your AFV will perform its historical role of killing other armored units.

Of course, all of this is for naught if this can't be coded easily. And, while it would be really, really cool if BTS decided to implement this idea, I don't think I'll lose any sleep over it if it isn't done for CM1. Still, a guy can always hope, can't he?

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

Formerly known as not THE Charles from BTS

[Guest Big Time Software]

I agree with Moon's observations with regards to not allowing units to fire into/through smoke (or massively decreasing the effectiveness).

But there's more: what about when to fire? Because of the all-units-think-with-the-player's-one-brain problem (common to all wargames), there could be a friendly unit with LOS to the enemy hiding behind the smoke, and this tells the MG gunner when he should start spraying bullets out into the smoke.

In other words, just decreasing the firepower is not enough, because too often you'll know when no one is out there (and not waste ammo then). And as soon as an enemy does move out, using the smoke as cover, you'll instantly see this and start firing into the smoke. This ends up being quite unrealistic and gamey.

In real life, if a unit wanted to fire into smoke, he could only guess whether an enemy is in there or not. Does he want to squeeze off regular bursts for a minute? Two minutes? Ten minutes? How long? How much ammo can he afford to 'waste' on low-percentage shots like this? But because of the all-units-think-with-the-player's-one-brain problem, there's no good way for CM to model this.

So given the limitations inherent to a computer game, I think it's actually more realistic not to allow firing into smoke. Allowing it would only create worse problems, IMO.

Charles

[Apoc]

One exception to the rule, Charles. If you were stuffed in a Pillbox/Bunker and knew the enemy was just on the other side of the smoke screen and closing in on your position you'd probably let loose with the lead.

I'm not talking about gamey tactics. In a recent operation, I layed smoke in front of fixed positions and easily defeated them knowing as I advanced that they'd be totally vulnerable. In reality, the fixed positions would have their MG's sighted/bored to various locations knowing the exact position of barrel angle needed to hit a key locations. At the minimum they'd lace the ground 50-100 meters in front of their own position. Heck, the sooner they run out of ammo, the quicker they can vacate

[Guest grunto]

ok from this thread it looks like one of the best roundabout ways to alleviate this problem is to have AFVs stop targeting vehicle crews.

long term though there must be a way to simulate smoke so it doesn't so much affect lof, but mainly los instead. i don't know though if 'making smoke more realistic' would require too much cpu power or what.

but yes target priorities as in, 'never spend any ammo on enemy vehicle crews' or 'don't turn turret if targeting smoked vehicle' would be nice.

i guess what really 'frosts' some of us is seeing our tankers - for whatever reason - turn their guns away from 'really important' targets.

i also liked the idea about forcing an afv which pops smoke to go into reverse.

andy

[Guest *Captain Foobar*]

Good point, and I find that I too often take advantage of the omnipotent player info in other areas too, specifically artillery.

But back to the wittman syndrome, what is your opinion on making tanks that drop smoke automatically reverse out of Line of Sight?

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

Life is tough...Its even tougher if you're stupid...

[Bullethead]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>In real life, if a unit wanted to fire into smoke, he could only guess whether an enemy is in there or not. Does he want to squeeze off regular bursts for a minute? Two minutes? Ten minutes? How long? How much ammo can he afford to 'waste' on low-percentage shots like this? But because of the all-units-think-with-the-player's-one-brain problem, there's no good way for CM to model this.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

In real life defensive plans, MMGs, HMGs, and mortars almost always have TRP-like targets out in front. The whole purpose of such things is to bring effective fire while shooting blind, such as when the enemy lays a smokescreen or at night. IOW, to keep the enemy from using reduced visibility to overrun your position.

With MMGs/HMGs, the usual idea is to exploit grazing fire. So the TRP-like things would be set up near the opposite end of the line from where the MG is, so that it can form a barrier of grazing fire diagonally all across the parent unit's front. Generally multiple MGs spread along the line create crossfires of grazing fire this way. When they get the word, they shoot rapid bursts, as much as possible, at these pre-recorded targets and continue to do so until specific targets become visible near their line of fire. This is one of the main reasons why MGs have all that ammo. But the point isn't so much to hit the TRP-thing, but to create a grazing fire barrier to slow, stop, and/or attrit the invisible attackers.

So IMHO if unmoved mortars can fire blind at TRPs, then MMGs/HMGs should have a similar ability. This is quite realistic and is one of the intended purposes of owning an MMG/HMG in the first place. But mortars should not be able to use MMG/HMG TRP-things, and vice versa. And squads shouldn't be able to use either.

As to the "1 brain thinks for all" thing unrealistically tipping off the defending player, I disagree. You have built a spotting system that allows players to use units as OPs to gain info on the enemy. This has to assume there is some way for the OP unit to communicate back to the other units. Given this assumption, allowing players to trigger this type of blind fire is perfectly realistic--that's why they put our OPs in real life.

Also, I don't see how this is a concern anyway in this type of situation. The OP unit might announce that now is a good time to start shooting at the TRP-things, but that's the only thing the MMG/HMG/mortar can shoot at because all the enemy are hidden. So for the mortars, you just have to hope the enemy is really where you're shooting. And for the MGs, you have to hope an enemy unit crosses your line of grazing fire at the same time you shoot a burst. No guarantees for the defender, but it's very realistic to allow them the chance.

But if human players aren't a problem, I can see how making the AI do this sort of thing correctly would be a serious challenge. However, IMHO the lack of such blind fire, at least by support weapons, is a serious realism flaw in CM at present, and thus needs to be remedied. Otherwise, you make smokescreens into a gamey tactic (that is, much more effective than they should be, and thus unrealistically exploitable).

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

-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

[:USERNAME:]

From the MG thread:

In reality it became evident during modern battles that the manuver force (ie moving guys) should be in the minority to the cover force. In close terrain this was particuly true. In Normandy it was common to have everyone in a company save a squad or half squad firing and laying down a base of fire while a small element would work its way forward on a limited mission. This could be just to get close enough so that they would try to take out one OP or MG nest.

Mass wave attacks are stupid and should be avoided. MGs during WWI did mow down waves of infantry..

I think the real question should be "Does CM model infantry firepower correctly?".

Can one platoon of defending dug-in infantry stop up to twice their own numbers? Without support weapons on the attacckers side (tanks/arty) I would expect they would usually (given good fields of fire). Can a platoon stop a company? Usually not but possible.

Steve is absolutely wrong about MGs. It is common practice to set them up to defend where grazing fire can set up kill zones about to 200 meters out. A defender will usually wait till a wave attacker is well within this zone to open fire. This was standard practice on the eastern front and works very well.

You fire a MG across your defensive front so as to get the attackers to cross your fire. You aim ahead of them and allow them to walk into it. At knee level they are entering a kill zone. You setup aiming stakes so you know when to open up.

MGs in the attack support role will use the range that Steve says because they will be attacking point targets. In the defense you would not normally advertise your main line of resistance till the last moment. Its just an extension of ambushing.

In reality "running" on the battlefield entails losing alot of unit cohesion (and assumes alot of command and control). I believe the game should limit the number of running commandss given out. "group" commands can count as one or something like that. Most real "charges" are rare aaand demand alot of time to setup.

Lewis

[John Kettler]

I think this thread is exploring some really worthwhile ideas, but sadly, it looks as though the defense is going to stay hamstrung by not being able to fire into smoke with small arms, arty or mortars, absent a TRP (for the latter two). No feedback either on the minefield issues I raised.

I would therefore like to offer an alternative approach: reduce the availability of smoke so that it is no longer the defense breaker it currently is in some scenarios.Maybe model duds?

If smoke is going to always block LOS and always burn for a fixed time, and can't be fired into, then it seems blatantly obvious to me that some such countervailing method is needed in order that the defense not be subject to what amounts in a sense to a superweapon.

The main option I've just described would incur no CPU hit or any significant code revision, just minor tweaks in the ammo availability tables.

Another approach would require identifying a way or ways to increase the defense's effectiveness after the unsuppressed, unhit attacker appears en masse more or less on top of the defender's position, engaging each defensive position with multiple attacking units.

This is not an abstract issue, either, for I've had whole dug-in platoons shredded in VoT precisely because my foe could make entire major battlefield areas disappear behind huge smokescreens, behind which he advanced hordes of infantry with utter impunity. When the smoke cleared, the khakied formations were practically in my foxholes, having lost only a handful of casualties from the odd shot which occasionally presented itself during his advance.

I just had another thought. Maybe you could have the AI generate random casualties and morale effects in the screened units based upon the defensive firepower available, modified by some suitable degradation factor, of course.

This would have the effect of both slowing and disrupting the current march to victory which is, in my view, unfair, ahistoric and quite frustrating to the player defending.

I believe that something needs to be done to restore the real advantages the defense had historically and which, for a variety of reasons are not being modeled in CM and may never be.

What say the rest of you?

Sincerely,

John Kettler

[Guest Scott Clinton]

What if MGs were allowed to target TRPs that were in LOS? Perhaps a different type of "TRP" for mgs?

Hell, I don't know...

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

Please note: The above is solely the opinion of 'The Grumbling Grognard' and reflects no one else's views but his own.