My case against artillery effectiveness in CM

[Count Sessine]

Hi everyone,

Combat Mission is the game I have been waiting for for something like 15 years. Ever since I first played D-Day on my old ZX Spectrum, I’ve longed for a more realistic, and historically accurate simulation of WW2 combat. And since I know I’m going to spend a lot of time with this game in the future, I would like to join the ongoing debate about, and if possible, influence, its future evolution. I haven’t got a copy of the full game yet, so these comments are based on the Gold Demo, and especially the VoT scenario.

For some time now, I have been wondering how BTS would historically defend the excessive casualties an artillery bombardment (ie. the 105mm in VoT) always incurs. I have tested the results of a bombardment on soldiers in all sorts of terrain, and the result is almost always identical. If a squad finds itself in, or close to, the epicenter of a bombardment the squad is eliminated. It doesn’t matter if its in foxholes, trees or open terrain. It doesn’t matter if its moving or prone. The result is the same. Of course there are variances on the pattern. It would seem that being in foxholes hiding could possibly extend its survival with a minute or two, but this might just as well be my imagination. I can’t even begin to imagine the devastating effect of a 150mm bombardment …

Since I’m an avid reader of historical accounts I’ve tried to go back and find examples of first person accounts by people who has survived artillery in WW2. It seemed that the most appropriate period of the war for such a search, and most well documented, would be the Ardennes battles. I have found a book by a Roland Gaul ‘The battle of the Bulge in Luxembourg’, ed. Schiffer Military History, 1995, that throughly interviews soldiers from both sides, and of all ranks.

The german accounts are generally very impressed by the sheer volume of US artillery fire. The american shells followed all german movements, by day and by night. The fire was precise, and vast numbers of shells could easily be brought down on any section of the front. Even veterans from the Eastern Front shows surprise at the intensity of the US artillery on the Western Front.

There are many accounts, and selecting a few won’t prove or disprove anything about realworld artillery effectiveness in WW2, but neither does the parameters in Combat Mission. They are approximations, as they should be.

Account by Unteroffizier Wilhelm Stetter, 3rd company, GR915, 352 VG Div.:

“The trucks brought us as far forward as possible; then we had to go through the familiar thunder og the US artillery… Because of the constant artillery fire, we settled in a cellar that offered us some protection against the shells… Now every night we had to transport ammunition and rations from Hoesdorf for the two platoons located in Bettendorf, then load up with sacks of flour from the mill there and bring them back. And there were always American harassing fire, which was heavier in Hoesdorf than down on the Sauer. On January 6 I was almost caught by a direct hit, but was able to throw myself on the ground at the right time while the shell came in. The mortar exploded on the street ten meters from me but I was not wounded. On the next day, a shell went off right at the entrance to our cellar quarters. One of our men took a splinter through the knee and was taken away. How we envied him!”, page 98.

This shows that the incoming shells were no surprise (they had plenty of sound cues) and because Stetter was a veteran from Russia, and as such an experienced soldier, he knew when to throw himsef on the ground. Except for a direct hit, Stetter as a soldier had a way to deal reasonably well with artillery (a realistic prospect of surviving it). He never expresses the belief that suffering an artillery bombardment was certain death. On the other hand artillery did have an effect. It consistently prevented movement, cut telephone cables between command posts, and scared the newly drafted soldiers into complete inactivity. One can also presume that stress levels due to lack of sleep increased and thus diminished overall combat efficiency.

And now a very interesting account. Major Schubring-Griese (veteran of Russia and Poland), newly arrived battalion commander of GR916, 352 VG Div. remembers:

“A messenger brought me down to Diekirch on foot, under constant artillery fire that served to block the road and the wooded slope north of Diekirch, where artillery observers were believed to be in the trees. This march on foot still seems endlessly long to me today. Not only the road and the north slope were under constant fire, but so was all of Diekirch.Anything that moved were fired on at once. Deeply shaken, I was taken to the battalions command post in the cellar of a hardware store… I had been in Diekirch only a few days when the new year of 1945 began. My fears, that were based on my experiences in Russia, proved to be justified. At midnight Diekrich trembled under a pounding by heavy artillery shells. The bombardment lasted almost ten minutes. No deaths or injuries occurred among the troops though. I had warned my men at the right time. I never heard of injuries among the civilian population.”, pages 110-111.

Hmm. No deaths or injuries ?!? That couldn’t have happened in CM. This goes a long way to showing us, that soldiers in prepared positions, expecting an attack (as the germans are in VoT) could effectivily protect themselves against a heavy artillery bombardment lasting 10 minutes, which is a lot longer than the bombardment actually available to the US in VoT.

I won’t go on, piling one account on top of the other. But there are more like these, and the general trend points toward the conclusion, that although artillery fire did kill a lot of troops, you had to be inordinately unlucky to have an entire platoon removed as a fighting force in a matter of two minutes, by ten 105mm shells. The effect was, as stated above, more on another level: communications delays, inactivity by panic, severe movement penalties and stress.

Answer this question: in a Monte Cassino scenario, how would the german paratroopers survive in Combat Mission? The answer is, of course, that they wouldn’t.

[Leftwing66]

You're in luck. I believe that this has been addressed. IIRC Charles said somewhere in an earlier post that bunker resistance to artillery had been substantially increased, and my own very limited time playing the release version seems to bear this out.

Perhaps people who have played some artillery intensive scenarios would like to comment?

[aka_tom_w]

I have not read that many real life WW II battle accounts or after action reports. I admit that.

But I did find the arty in VoT VERY effective, I wondered to myself if it was too effective?

I have no real way of knowing...

but the arty when all four spotters combined, in VoT was VERY leathal.

Should it be so leathal?

I think that is a good question but I have no facts to back this one up either way.

On the other hand I thought those small mortars seemed to be about the level of fire power and effectiveness that I would have imagined. I thought that using those small 60mm (?) mortors they did not do too much damage and you had to be fairly lucky to kill something. That seemed about right to me.

but the big stuff like those Four FO's in VoT sure did cause a heck of alot of damage if you just keep letting it rain in on something like a concrete or wooden bunker.

And it seemd to kill a fairly high number of infanty as well, even if they were hiding in fox holes. I figured MOST infantry actually hiding in foxholes would only end up shaken after an arty barrage, but it sure did kill them at an alarming rate.

But I don't know that much about artillary so I figured I was just getting lucky alot, or it REALLY was that effective.

But I don't know?

-tom w

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

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> "Have you thanked BTS by buying your SECOND copy of CM yet?" <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[aka_tom_w]

Great!

thanks for the post Leftwing

that makes sense to me, those concrete bunkers seemed to get taken out by arty in VoT a little too quickly for my sense of reality, but I admit I'm not real sure what reality in WW II arty barrage terms was?

-tom w

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Leftwing66:

You're in luck. I believe that this has been addressed. IIRC Charles said somewhere in an earlier post that bunker resistance to artillery had been substantially increased, and my own very limited time playing the release version seems to bear this out.

Perhaps people who have played some artillery intensive scenarios would like to comment?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

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

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> "Have you thanked BTS by buying your SECOND copy of CM yet?" <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[Joe Shaw]

A very well reasoned and reasonable post, and I'm far from the person to debate the effectiveness of artillery, I'll leave that others. A couple of thoughts occur immediately, however. First, remember than in CM, "eleminating" a squad doesn't mean that that they are all KIA. They may be wounded or simply rendered hors de combat (God, I hope I spelled that right, Minimus has us all nervous as cats ). Second, anecdotal evidence such as you provide must be taken with a grain of salt. While it can provide a basis for further research, the accounts of one, or two or a dozen men are heavily dependent upon circumstances and personal viewpoints and really can't be used to make a final determination, at least in my view. But a good question and well thought out.

Joe

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

Compliments appreciated, Questions answered, Death Threats reciprocated.

[jgdpzr]

Good accounts, I enjoyed them immensely.

A couple of points regarding arty effectiveness in CM.

1.)Much of the fire that is described in the reports you list are probably of the area fire variety. They were rounds called in most likely for suppression. In CM, when the FO's have direct sight to the target, it is assumed that they are able to quite accurately adjust the fire and are bringing in the rounds in a smaller target area. Even though the reports reference FO's, I have the feeling that they are talking about barrages that have much greater dispersion.

2.)Arty fire's effect has been moderated slightly in the patch, but I believe mostly in terms of its effectiveness versus hard targets.

3.)I've apparently seen more variability in the effectiveness of the fire than you have. For example, especially when I have a HQ with morale bonus in C&C, my squads seem to withstand the fire a little better. I've had some occasions when large numbers of troops have perished in a barrage, but not obviously excessive. And I have noticed a difference when I can keep my guys in foxholes.

4.)Keep on the alert for spotting rounds. Whenever I see a single round come down near some of my units that have been spotted, I know it is time to hightail it into better cover if at all possible.

Still, I agree that artillery is something that must be closely analyzed because if it is unrealistic in its execution, it can seriously distort play balance. I am literally trembling when I contemplate commanding German units confronted fire from the Royal Navy's fourteen inch guns.

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

"Sometimes you eat the bar and sometimes the bar eats you. Take it easy, Dude." -- The Stranger

The Dude abides.

[Wild Bill Wilder]

Artillery was the number one killer of troops in WW2.

A platoon, caught in the open and being hit by 10 rounds of 105mm rounds will suffer catastrophic casualties, depending on the accuracy of the bombardment.

Only those who have been there, who have been deafened by the concussion, who have felt the horror of the next shell having "their name on it" could truly understand its devastating power.

I personally interpret losses as casualties, not kills. This includes wounded who are incapacitated for further combat, men who are so shaken by what is happening that they can no longer fight or otherwise rendered useless.

At any rate, we spent many hours in the testing circles going over the effects of artillery in the game. I tend to stand by the game as it presents artillery and its effects.

When designing a scenario, remember its potency. Too much artillery can end a scenario very quickly

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

Wild Bill

Lead Tester/Designer

Combat Mission-Beyond Overlord

billw@matrixgames.com

[robertpat1]

I think that some of the examples that you stated are examples of harassing fire which would not be at all that heavy.

However where were most of the solders in the barrages that you mentioned? In the cellars, which aren't currently modeled in CM and these cellars provided most of the protection. The closest that we have now in CM are concert pillboxes. Ever tried taking one out with a 105 barrage? Perhaps this feature will be modeled in CM2 along with tunnels, trenches, anti-tank ditches, man-able pill boxes, tile specific weather, and all the other goodies that we are all hoping for.

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

A 2x4 and a kind word work better than just a 2x4

[GreasyPig]

I heard that an arty barrage in a wooded area could be just as nasty if not more so than in the open. Something about rounds impacting the trees and creating even more shrapnel. Of coarse this extra shrapnel effected mostly soft targets (which is what were talking about here). Also the trees could cause an "air burst" and possibly more damage.

I can't remeber where I read this. But I do remember it was of WWI era. Im definitely NOT saying to avoid trees as they provide cover from detection but wonder if spotted troops in trees should receive any "cover" bonus.

GreasyPig

Talking out of A$$

I recall an account of an arty barrage of WWI in a forested area. I

[Buckeye]

It's definitely worse to be caught under trees in an artillery barrage, because they create airbursts, which can be deadly even if troops are in foxholes. This is a feature that's implemented in CM.

[Dittohead]

However if you are dug in with good overhead cover on you foxhole then the art. barrage in the woods would have minimal effect.

Tony

[Guest Scott Clinton]

I have read quite a few first person accounts of the war.

IMO when many of them state that "we were under artillery fire" are referring to rounds, that in CM's terms, were simply on the same map.

I remember in Ambrose's "Band of Brothers" reading about all the artillery fire the unit received from D-Day and Arhnem and it was quite a bit. Then near the end of the Battle of the Bulge the unit returned to a previously occupied position with very good foxholes (with overhead cover). This position was in some heavy woods too. Well, it turned out that while the unit was gone the Germans had 'zeroed-in' on the position with some artillery. Within minutes the unit was decimated. I then realized that all the previous fire (or much of it) was 'not on target' in CM terms.

I also recall reading accounts in "Seven Roads to Hell" and "Company Commander" about fire that was 'really close' that was then described by the author rounds that landed as close as 100 yards away.

IMO, we have to keep in mind that "close" is relative to whether we are talking about little electronic images on your computer screen or YOU at receiving end of the bombardment.

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

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

[Count Sessine]

Thanks for the kind responses. It is true that the first account mainly deals with harassing fire. This doesn’t negate the information about the damage done by an exploding shell merely 10 meters away. The second account, however, most definitely falls within our VoT category of a well planned and targeted fire mission.

As for the cellars, it seems true that since soldiers seemed to use them all the time during bombardments it’s a disaster for any defender in Combat Mission that they’re missing from the game.

I can very well believe that artillery was an important weapon in WW2. Whether it was the number one killer or not is likely a matter of conjecture. What is more certain, is that if artillery effectiveness was as high in WW2 as I think it is in CM, I find it hard to believe Germany could have kept any divisions on the frontline, for more than a few hours before they were whittled down, much less dreamed of initiating local counter attacks in the face of such overwhelming fire. And, despite the excellent american field artillery, this was clearly not the case. Counter attacks could proceed in the face of artillery fire, a three minute bombardment of dugin troops did most definitely not remove them as a threat, and concrete bunkers did not blow up whenever a tank decided to lob a few shells in its direction. In VoT, the US combat engineers don’t have anything to do. The tanks deal just fine with bunkers. Its satisfying that the bunkers vulnerability is increased in the patch.

Artillery should be toned down in CM, or rather the damage it does should ‘lean’ more towards morale and movement penalties.

/CS

[Guest rune]

Count,

Respectfully disagree with you. You are trying to mix apples and oranges. Your first quote is on a Mortar hitting nearby. Place a squad in the open and have a mortar fire. You will see depending on the size of the mortar, the squad can indeed survive.

Second quote has to do with a preliminary bombardment. This is NOT modelled in CM. The spotters are moving up with the attack and can call direct fire. The other side would NOT be cowering in a cellar, but getting ready to repel the attack.

Case studies that proves the effect of artillery. 1. Go to the US Amry Historical Command and read any of the AARs posted. See how many casualties were caused. I have written documentation that Artillery caught a German Battalion in the open, and caused 752 confirmed dead. I have another story of a German Patrol being spotted in the forest fighting in Germany, and all 52 were killed. I have AARs from Germany, Italy, and the fighting in France.

Finally, we have SEVERAL artillery officers on this board. Ask them their opinion of the arty in CM. One has even said it was the first game that ever got it right.

I think the atrillery is modelled well. Move too fast, and you will go into an ambush. Move too slow and shells will be ringing your ears. As Wild Bill said, it was one of the most tested areas during beta. He is right when he says it is up to the scenario designer not to get carried away with spotters either.

Rune

PS there is a scenario where Panzers meet 14" shells, based on a real battle. Joel made it, and is an excellent operation. I had the honor of testing it for him...

[GhostOne]

Count....I haven't seen tanks kill a concrete bunker in CM unless they get a round through the slit. They definitely don't "blow up whenever a tank decided to lob a few shells in its direction".

Ghost

[Guest Germanboy]

Hmm, I had a PBEM where my opponent lobbed lots of 105 and 81 into Plomville, where I had a whole platoon in houses. They were all in heavy buildings. Casualties (before a house collapsed) were 1, the collapse cost me another 3. The problem was that they were all panicked by the time the GIs arrived, so they had not a lot of fight left in them. That seemed quite reasonable to me, and seems to chime with the second account you provide.

As for the mortar going off ten metres away - I just read an account of someone having a stick grenade hit his forehead and going off there. The guy survived virtually unscathed. Freak things happen.

Remember that foxholes are open to the top, so if you are in woods and get tree-bursts they are lethal. The same for being caught in the open.

It surely is frustrating to be at the receiving end of a barrage, but so is life, I believe. Have your guys in positions that are not obviousor outside observation (reverse slopes) - that seems the best position.

Funnily enough, I have yet to see a 105 arty round kill a concrete pillbox, and I just wasted about 20 to kill a wooden one. Lobbed a whole supply of 60mm mortar onto it as well, to no effect, except for suppression.

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

Andreas

[aka_tom_w]

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

Funnily enough, I have yet to see a 105 arty round kill a concrete pillbox,

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That is funny I have played VoT 6 times three against humans and 3 against the AI (by sone standards I have not been playing enough ) BUT that is 6 times just as the Yanks. (not counting my Losses as the German, more than a few times)

Whenever I play the Ami I ALWAYS keep my armour out of the LOS of that 75 mm antitank gunner in the bunker until I kill the bunker with arty. I have never needed more than a 105 and the 80 (?) combined to take it out, sometimes in the first minute, sometimes after a few minutes, but I have never failed to kill it before running out of rounds from those two FO's. I refuse to expose my armour to its LOS or LOF until it is DEAD and I thought for a hardened concrete bunker it usually died too easily, I'm happy that it will take a little more pounding to KO.

I don't know about arty causeing dug in infantry casualties but I am very happy the patch will give those concrete bunkers a little more hardness and staying power, that "seems" right to me.

-tom w

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

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> "Have you thanked BTS by buying your SECOND copy of CM yet?" <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[Guest Germanboy]

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

Whenever I play the Ami I ALWAYS keep my armour out of the LOS of that 75 mm antitank gunner in the bunker until I kill the bunker with arty. I have never needed more than a 105 and the 80 (?) combined to take it out, sometimes in the first minute, sometimes after a few minutes, but I have never failed to kill it before running out of rounds from those two FO's. I refuse to expose my armour to its LOS or LOF until it is DEAD and I thought for a hardened concrete bunker it usually died too easily, I'm happy that it will take a little more pounding to KO.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You're just a big girlie sissy blouse - real man slug it out, tank vs. pillbox! Where's the humour in using arty?

Please note that all smilies on this iMac fell victim to fracticide.

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

Andreas

[DrD]

From 2/00:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>After reading several real-life accounts of life on the western front (including Citizen Soldier, Guns of Normandy, Roll Me Over, etc), I am consistently impressed that the front line soldier stayed "underground" during an artillery barage, usually in a foxhole or a bomb crater. Anybody caught lying above ground level, never mind standing or walking was often wounded or killed in a matter a seconds. Tree bursts (Hurtgen Forest) were another matter altogether.

However, I find in CM, I can consistantly manouever whole platoons right through arty barrages with out a single scratch. I know the game wouldn't be fun if everybody stayed in their foxhole for 30 turns, but I am curious if the final version will model arty any more realistically than the demo?

Hundminen <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And we wonder why game designers go crazy.

[Schugger]

Just my two Pf.

In my PBEM game against Freyland ( who is an expert in using his artillery i must add) even his heaviest barrage on Plomville, which consists at least of two batteries 105, caused only slight casualties to my troops in heavy buildings. However, the number increases when the roofs started to fall on the nuts of my grunts.

Moral problems were a more serious concern as my green Schreck team and Rifle squad turned tail even without taking a single loss.

Troops in the open should not stay in place if they were exposed for more then one turn, as you can bet that your opponent ( and Freyland in particular) will use his next order phase to send you some 81mm X-mas presents. So use your order phase to change the position of your exposed troops, possibly covered by yet unexposed troops hidden and in ambush, just for the case your opponent chooses to make a bold move.

For those concrete pillboxes there are two parties: one stated that they waste their whole ammunition to zero effect on them while the other looses it's pbs on the instant of a barrage. I definitely belong to the latter one

As far as I'm concerned i want to have the arty modelled as realistic as possible and both sides showed good arguments in the discussion.

If the arty is to lethal in the game, please change it otherwise let it as ii is.

Schugger

[This message has been edited by Schugger (edited 06-22-2000).]

[Rod]

Hi guys,

I played a quick random generated battle last night that basically turned into an artillery duel. It was set in fog with moderate hills and low tree cover and a village on one end. I had 2 60mm mortars and an 81mm spotter. The Germans had two 81mm spotters. After an initial long range tank duel between my two tank destroyers and a Tiger(turned out to be a Panzer IV at the end of the game) I moved a platoon up a valley to some trees at the end. I thought I was out of LOS but about half way a barrage came down. Two of my squads routed forward to the trees while the other squad and the HQ headed back down the valley. I sent a jeep to go round up my leader but it was knocked out by a near miss. This effectively killed my initial probe and left two of my squads broken close to the german MLR and out of CC. Luckily my surviving TD was able to provide cover while I regrouped. I took some casualties but the biggest effect was it screwed up my master plan. This platoon was later caught in another nasty barrage in some woods but survived to the end with around 50% casualties.

After this I sent my remaining 2 platoons around the left side to try to get into the town. They ran into some dug in infantry and were stopped dead. I had my two mortars with me and melted the tubes down trying to displace these guys. I did manage to keep their heads down but they wouldn't budge until I was able to move up my infantry to engage in close combat.

Finally I had the Germans on the run with a HMG in a house as their only strong point and it was keeping me pinned down. I called in my 81mm and pounded the house for about 4 turns. Only a couple of times did he get pinned. Finally the house collapsed when I added the TD to the barrage. Only after the HMG pulled out did I finally cut him down and the Germans surrendered.

The moral of the story is this game is awesome, duh . As far as the lower calibre barrages I think they are about right from a game playing standpoint, if used correctly. I guess if you are expecting incoming artillery keep it in mind. Have escape plans,stay out of(or don't stay long in) obvious barrage terrain and keep your troops spaced apart. Then you'll be relatively ok. Also remember we're talking about half hour to hour time periods. If you took a heavy gauge barrage I could easily see you taking an hour to regroup into an effective fighting force again. As far as reality the closest I've been to a mortar is shooting tennis balls out of a tin can cannon.(Probably get arrested for that these days)

[Guest Big Time Software]

Hello Count and everybody else,

We strongly feel that Artillery is modeled correctly. The documentation for casualties by small unit artillery action is a lot better than you seem to think. Rune mentioned a few battles, another one is Dom Burtenbach (sp?) where the better part of a REGIMENT of the 12th SS was effectively eliminated by heavy concentrations of well directed artillery. On the Eastern Front entire German battlions were wiped out, nearly to a man, during Operation Bagration in 1944.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I can very well believe that artillery was an important weapon in WW2. Whether it was the number one killer or not is likely a matter of conjecture. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, this is not true at all. The effectiveness of various branches of the military in WWII are very well documented. US Army reports concluded that artillery caused about 70% of all casualties in WWII. This would be less on the average front line situation, but still... expect about 40-60% casualties on the frontlines when artillery is present in significant quantities.

We are also lucky enough to have a few veterans on this BBS who have been on the firing and receiving end of artillery. They were of great influence when we redid the artillery inbetween the Beta and Gold Demos. The last time this issue was brought up they endorsed CM's system as being probably as close to reality as a wargame is going to get.

As for our own research... we have done quite a bit of it. It all checks out when you compare the correct types of bombardments in historical accounts with those in CM. Not mixing apples and oranges is VERY important here as you will get false impressions of effectiveness if you do so.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>What is more certain, is that if artillery effectiveness was as high in WW2 as I think it is in CM, I find it hard to believe Germany could have kept any divisions on the frontline, for more than a few hours before they were whittled down, much less dreamed of initiating local counter attacks in the face of such overwhelming fire<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, this was very often the case. German counter attacks were very often eliminated by nothing more than artillery fire. BUT, one can not whack something if the artillery and ammo are not present. The reason why all the German divisions didn't melt away under artillery fire is one of scale. There are only so many guns that can fire on only so many positions so many times. This is the same reason that a German tank units weren't able to roll over the Allies whenever they wanted. Practical considerations and additional factors meant that this could only happen in theory, not in reality. BUT, on the small scale it absolutely could happen (Whittman for example).

The thing here that one needs to remember is that the casualties sustained by artillery will be directly proportional to the size and ratio of artillery to targets. Correct use of artillery obviously also has a great effect. In VoT the Americans are provided with a fairly heavy quantity of artillery for the scope of the battlefield they are fighting over. The Germans should expect to take heavy casualites because of this. And that is realistic.

Steve

P.S. If you want to see more about this debate, use the Search function. Lots of other threads exist.

[TommyD]

This thread is one of the reasons it is such a pleasure to monitor these discussion groups. Great points on both sides.

My own $.02 is that artillery is just about right in the game. I have read books about WWII that make the case that almost 75% of "combat" casualties (ie, non-disease) were caused by artillery. I'm not an artillery officer, but I have talked to many who state convincingly that their branch has (and had) the lion's share of firepower in the army.

One last point, I think it's easy to forget the short time period modeled in CM. If an artillery barrage killed only 5 members of a platoon, but left the rest shell-shocked for an hour, the entire platoon is completely ineffective in CM game terms. If each turn is a minute, that would be 60 turns sitting around doing nothing (longer than most CM scenarios). If a unit is rendered ineffective for an hour, it is "lost" for CM game purposes (and with many scenarios, they're lost with an even shorter "ineffective" time).

Tom

[Marnix]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Count Sessine:

As for the cellars, it seems true that since soldiers seemed to use them all the time during bombardments it's a disaster for any defender in Combat Mission that they're missing from the game.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

How difficult would it be to add cellars anyway? All the elements seem to be in the game engine already. I think adding a heavy builing underground, directly below another building should do the trick. That way, if the building on top collapses, the cellar will still be intact. Troops could easily move between building and cellar-building just as they do in a 2-story building. Anyone in the cellar would only have LoS directly upwards into the building on top. It could work... Maybe something for 1.02?

[Bullethead]

I was in the arty for 8 years. I shot it at the badguys and got to observe the results. I also had it shot at me, both by badguys and goodguys. So I think I'm fairly qualified to pontificate on this subject.

On the whole, I think CM's treatment of the power of explosions on exposed troops, soft-skinned vehicles, and buildings is quite accurate. Real arty (like 105mm and bigger) causes very nasty damage to exposed targets. And CM has it about the right effect (ie, much less) on covered targets, too, IMHO.

I had a quibble in the beta demo about blast/shrapnel effects on hard targets but haven't been able to test this enough in the real game yet.

One thing I do still have a quibble about, however, is the morale as opposed to lethality effects of shelling in CM. And this I think results in higher arty casualties than should be the case. Basically, troops in foxholes under shelling start out pretty safe, maybe the odd casualty or 2 but for the most part intact. But as the fire continues, their morale plummets. This is OK, too, except that eventually run away. They then lose their protection and get slaughtered.

In real life, almost nobody tries to run under shelling, even if they are totally panicked. But CM apparently uses the same panic routine for all situations, from small arms to arty. I'd like to see this changed someday but I can live with it for now. The point, however, is that there's nothing wrong with the arty here--exposed troops SHOULD be mowed down like that. The problem is that the troops shoulnd't have exposed themselves.

The other quibble I have is that your FOs can't specify how many rounds to shoot at a given target. IMHO, this is unrealistic. I think there should be a distinction between mortar and arty FOs, with mortars using the existing system and arty having to specify the number of rounds. But this is pretty minor, really.

In general and in almost all specifics, however, CM's handling of arty is by far the best I've ever seen in a game. It coincides very well with my own experiences on both ends of the gun-target line so I am confident it's quite realistic. Like Jager7 said, CM is the 1st game to get arty right.

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

-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